Southern Response to Economic Disparities

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,735
#1
Taken from post - https://civilwartalk.com/threads/economic-aspects-of-southern-sectionalism-1840-1861-russel.153645/ ...
The list of 'complaints' appears to be a listing of observations of the results of her historical investment choices.
It does look like some of the complaints about the economic disparity were justified, enough so that they met to address the problem over multiple years. I wonder why more did not ultimately come of those meetings?
But, aren't these "complaints" about northern economic dominance more the result of a lack of enterprise on the part of southerners? They lament that the people of the North were doing what they, themselves, apparently made little effort to do; and wound up idealizing their own agrarian lack of resourcefulness, while demonizing the "grasping, greedy" Yankees for filling the niches they neglected -- but sure enjoyed complaining about.

The list from one of @jgoodguy 's posts...

The complaints about the North were:
  1. South was in ""state of commercial dependence,"
  2. The exporting South should also receive its imports.
  3. The South exported 2/3 of exports but received only 1/10 of the import.
  4. Francis Mallory estimated that 9/10 if the exports went to Europe while 7/10 of imports came indirectly by way of Northern Seaports. (I am not sure if this is total consumable imports or alleged imports to the South implying the North consumed only 2/10s of imports.- 1/10 to the South 7/10s to the North is a total of only 8/10s.
  5. Imports in Charleston decreased very much. Millions to 1/2 million dollars 1807-1833
  6. Agents of Northern and English Firms exported Southern goods instead of Southern agents.
  7. Southern seaports were dominated by Northern agents and factors sucking the wealth to the North.
  8. Northern banks financed direct sales and purchases by Northerners on Northern Steamboats
  9. Southern merchants in the interior away from the river purchase their stocks in the North.
...we have the South identifying some problems. The first step - recognize the issue. Next step... What did the South do to rectify this imbalance? She could have built her own ships, did her own shipping, hired her own import / export agents, started her own banks, created her own distribution centers.

OK - some of these are kinda out of the realm of what the South could afford due to liquidity. Maybe she can't afford the infrastructure to build her own deep-sea vessels but she could buy them. Create her own shipping companies with associated agents. If needed, her own triangle trade - cotton directly to Britain, British exports back to NYC / Boston / Philly / Balto, Southern requirements back to say, Charleston. Would British investors been interested in starting banks in the South? Was there any attempt to resolve any of the above line items?

Thanks,
USS ALASKA
 

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

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,390
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#2
Taken from post - https://civilwartalk.com/threads/economic-aspects-of-southern-sectionalism-1840-1861-russel.153645/ ...





The list from one of @jgoodguy 's posts...



...we have the South identifying some problems. The first step - recognize the issue. Next step... What did the South do to rectify this imbalance? She could have built her own ships, did her own shipping, hired her own import / export agents, started her own banks, created her own distribution centers.

OK - some of these are kinda out of the realm of what the South could afford due to liquidity. Maybe she can't afford the infrastructure to build her own deep-sea vessels but she could buy them. Create her own shipping companies with associated agents. If needed, her own triangle trade - cotton directly to Britain, British exports back to NYC / Boston / Philly / Balto, Southern requirements back to say, Charleston. Would British investors been interested in starting banks in the South? Was there any attempt to resolve any of the above line items?

Thanks,
USS ALASKA
We have conventions identifying problems, not the South. The recommendations IMHO were a form of someone needs to do something and it turns out that someone was happy with the way things were and did very little. It is not the first time a convention proposed fixes for nonexistent problems.
 

DaveBrt

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,214
Location
Charlotte, NC
#3
Taken from post - https://civilwartalk.com/threads/economic-aspects-of-southern-sectionalism-1840-1861-russel.153645/ ...





The list from one of @jgoodguy 's posts...



...we have the South identifying some problems. The first step - recognize the issue. Next step... What did the South do to rectify this imbalance? She could have built her own ships, did her own shipping, hired her own import / export agents, started her own banks, created her own distribution centers.

OK - some of these are kinda out of the realm of what the South could afford due to liquidity. Maybe she can't afford the infrastructure to build her own deep-sea vessels but she could buy them. Create her own shipping companies with associated agents. If needed, her own triangle trade - cotton directly to Britain, British exports back to NYC / Boston / Philly / Balto, Southern requirements back to say, Charleston. Would British investors been interested in starting banks in the South? Was there any attempt to resolve any of the above line items?

Thanks,
USS ALASKA
There was great interest in the South having direct shipping connections to Europe -- railroads were built, even a port was built, to serve the dream. Unfortunately, the cost of shipping direct in smaller ships caused the plan to fall apart. It was just too cheap to ship to New York on regularly scheduled ships compared to using smaller ships direct. New York to Europe was on ships much too deep draft to get into any Southern port.
 

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,634
Location
Central Massachusetts
#4
There was great interest in the South having direct shipping connections to Europe -- railroads were built, even a port was built, to serve the dream. Unfortunately, the cost of shipping direct in smaller ships caused the plan to fall apart. It was just too cheap to ship to New York on regularly scheduled ships compared to using smaller ships direct. New York to Europe was on ships much too deep draft to get into any Southern port.
And, this is claimed as a significant "cause" of secession and war? But, just how would secession improve that situation? Shipping from southern ports would still be less profitable, and they would be trans-shipping through the same now-foreign, and presumably tariffed, or at least less easily accessible northern ports.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,792
#6
Politicians failed to find some fix in the 1850s, which would of benefited both Sections. Designing a TRR, which would of linked both sections would be 1 example. Some AG program that would of benefited the South and the North. Something that would of had commonality with the Sections. The North and South had become so Sectional, they viewed that a benefit to one Section was a threat to the other. Didn’t have to be that way.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,390
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#7
To have secession, there must be a sense of sectionalism that converts to nationalism. These conventions were the forerunner of sectionalism by bringing folks together with a grievance. Once you have organizations discussing grievances, they can be built upon.

How would secession help? Simply by making the Northern Route unprofitable, it makes the direct Southern route profitable. As a nation, the South has to deepen ports and build infrastructure. As a nation, the South can make foreigners come to them for cotton which was a necessity for industrialization.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,792
#8
To have secession, there must be a sense of sectionalism that converts to nationalism. These conventions were the forerunner of sectionalism by bringing folks together with a grievance. Once you have organizations discussing grievances, they can be built upon.

How would secession help? Simply by making the Northern Route unprofitable, it makes the direct Southern route profitable. As a nation, the South has to deepen ports and build infrastructure. As a nation, the South can make foreigners come to them for cotton which was a necessity for industrialization.
South should of done large parts of this before 1860. Opened the South up to more white, European Immigrants. Whites didn’t have to directly compete with Slave jobs. They didn’t need to work in the Cotton fields which had become the economic driver of Slavery. And which no end was in sight. Upper South was already recruiting Europeans. The lower South did during Reconstruction. If they were going to secede, they should of done it 10 years prior. The North would of Taxed Cotton after 1860. There was no Financial reason to destroy Cotton Production. The primary threat to Slavery in 1860 was secession. Abe Lincoln was from Kentucky. Plainly said he was a Whig. And was well known as a Clay follower. None of that could of been lost on the South.

Planters sent their sons to Ivy League Schools. Some should of become Bankers. But the fact is the major cities of Philadelphia and New York were the financial centers. Shipping was dominated by NYC, Boston and other Yankee Ports. Wasn’t going to change. Rail could of connected the whole thing. Why make it either one way, or the other. Surely the RR had more to do with it than is given credit. That and the other components of Sectionalism. The election of a anti-slavery President, which in this case was Anti-Southern, broke the final thread that held the sections together.

The Failure during this period is not Unifying the Sections. They were more alike than not. Both were based on White Supremacy. That surely wasn’t Sectional.
 

DaveBrt

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,214
Location
Charlotte, NC
#9
Politicians failed to find some fix in the 1850s, which would of benefited both Sections. Designing a TRR, which would of linked both sections would be 1 example. Some AG program that would of benefited the South and the North. Something that would of had commonality with the Sections. The North and South had become so Sectional, they viewed that a benefit to one Section was a threat to the other. Didn’t have to be that way.
A TRR would have had its termination in either the North or the South. How would at TRR have connected the two sections?

The South had a clearly thought out plan to link RRs across the South from north-eastern Texas, through Vicksburg, Jackson, Montgomery, and on to Charleston. The links to the North would have been by RR (NYC, Phil, Baltimore, Richmond, Raleigh, Columbia, Augusta, to the above eastern leg of the TRR), or by river (Ohio, Mississippi to Vicksburg). BIGGGG problem, crossing the Mississippi by rail at Vicksburg.

I don't see how the southern TRR would make much difference in the sectional controversy. I also don't see how the TRR was going to bring much freight from California to anywhere in the East at any time that would have affected the slavery problem. Maybe by the 1890's there would be enough traffic.

How would a northern TRR have integrated the South with the North?

What is an AG program that would benefit both sections? The South had cotton to offer the North, but they were already getting it by ship, which has always been cheaper than by railroad. The South was self-sufficient in corn, wheat and meat (if you include KY). What do you have in mind?
 

DaveBrt

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,214
Location
Charlotte, NC
#10
How would secession help? Simply by making the Northern Route unprofitable, it makes the direct Southern route profitable.
I do not agree. The southern route had to have products to ship east to make money. There was nothing in central or southern California to ship east at that time. A one-way railroad almost never makes money.

The northern route went through resource-rich country -- farming and lumber right away. This was also the route that would and could accept immigrants from northern Europe to develop the newly opened land.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,390
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#12
I do not agree. The southern route had to have products to ship east to make money. There was nothing in central or southern California to ship east at that time. A one-way railroad almost never makes money.

The northern route went through resource-rich country -- farming and lumber right away. This was also the route that would and could accept immigrants from northern Europe to develop the newly opened land.
I am thinking of cotton to England and English goods on the return.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,700
#13
The Failure during this period is not Unifying the Sections.
Momentum is a powerful thing.
There was a very successful economic system in place, a complementary system that benefited all three regions. Southern agricultural exports brought in foreign exchange, providing the capital for Northern factories, mills and mines and promoting the growth of Northern banks, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers. Those Northern factories provided equipment for Western farmers and meat packers to provide foodstuffs for the nation while Northern capital supported both Western small farms and expansion of the agricultural South.
With such a successful system harnessing regional differences for the common good there were few who wanted to reinvent the nation as a homogenous system. Only the Southern secessionists seem to have believed that if they removed their Southern 'leg', they could still thrive, while the North and West would founder. Instead, their attempt to remove their 'leg' through a long war, destroyed their economy while bringing prosperity to the North and West.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,792
#14
But slavery WAS sectional, and its necessity (in the eyes of the southern section) was enough to break the union.
The Benefit Of Slavery, wasn’t Sectional. The North shipped Slaves, Cotton, sold the South supplies to support Slavery. Financed Slavery. Developed towns loaded with spinning mills. Lincoln recognized Slavery as a National Issue. During the 1850s Yankees shiped 30k Coolies to Cuba, More than that to Peru. That migration was at least as bad as what they did during the African Slave Trade. Yankees also took full benefit of supporting other Countries as well as the South’s Institution Of Slavery.
 

DaveBrt

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,214
Location
Charlotte, NC
#17
The Benefit Of Slavery, wasn’t Sectional. The North shipped Slaves, Cotton, sold the South supplies to support Slavery. Financed Slavery. Developed towns loaded with spinning mills. Lincoln recognized Slavery as a National Issue. During the 1850s Yankees shiped 30k Coolies to Cuba, More than that to Peru. That migration was at least as bad as what they did during the African Slave Trade. Yankees also took full benefit of supporting other Countries as well as the South’s Institution Of Slavery.
I did not say "the benefit of slavery was sectional," I said slavery was sectional. The ownership of other humans was becoming a greater and greater moral outrage. The problem in America had been papered over for decades, but the paper finally ripped.

Yes Northerners were white supremacists -- they wanted the slaves sent back to Africa, not retained in the US. But they were against one man owning another.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,792
#18
A TRR would have had its termination in either the North or the South. How would at TRR have connected the two sections?

The South had a clearly thought out plan to link RRs across the South from north-eastern Texas, through Vicksburg, Jackson, Montgomery, and on to Charleston. The links to the North would have been by RR (NYC, Phil, Baltimore, Richmond, Raleigh, Columbia, Augusta, to the above eastern leg of the TRR), or by river (Ohio, Mississippi to Vicksburg). BIGGGG problem, crossing the Mississippi by rail at Vicksburg.

I don't see how the southern TRR would make much difference in the sectional controversy. I also don't see how the TRR was going to bring much freight from California to anywhere in the East at any time that would have affected the slavery problem. Maybe by the 1890's there would be enough traffic.

How would a northern TRR have integrated the South with the North?

What is an AG program that would benefit both sections? The South had cotton to offer the North, but they were already getting it by ship, which has always been cheaper than by railroad. The South was self-sufficient in corn, wheat and meat (if you include KY). What do you have in mind?
Federal Government during the war developed the Department Of Argiculture. Surly there were some Federal Government Programs which would of benefited both sections. Research on fertilizer, soil conservation and the like. Both sections had agriculture.

Rail lines could of been linked and improved the Southern network. It didn’t have to be a program which benefited 1 Section and not the other. A Federal Program which helped to improve some Southern Ports could of been linked to a massive Infrastructure Plan. Something that would of benefited both sections.
 



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