The Cause of the American Civil War - The American Industrial Revolution

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,001
#1
Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2015
Industrial Modernization and the American Civil War
by Corey Patrick Gray
For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu

The central question of this thesis is what caused the American Civil War. I have sought to show in this study that the American Industrial Revolution provides the explanation. After the Industrial Revolution took hold in America, the country's social, political, and military landscape changed. The nation was transformed from holding a generally uniform mindset to one separated along ideological lines. This investigation explores positive correlations between social, political, and military events of the period and the threads that connect them. The narrative of a consistently visible ideological clash between traditional and modern rationales is not meant to create a cause-and-effect relationship between industrialization modernization and the Civil War. Yet, in light of these correlations, the ideological conflict between traditionalism and modernization does help explain how and why the period was characterized by such profound change.

Modernization and traditionalism provide vehicles for understanding the transitions that occurred after the Industrial Revolution. The impact of industrialization touched all aspects of American life. This study reviews the effects in separate social, political, and military sections to show the depth and breadth of change that occurred in those days. Each section in this study gives examples that reflect a common thread of ideological friction and change. The adversarial relationship between modernity and tradition provides predictable patterns that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by the same group of events. The pattern has three general phases: cohesion, instability, and ultimately a fracture.

The social impact of industrialization began in cities. Before the Industrial Revolution in America, the social landscape was predominantly agrarian. Most Americans looked to agriculture to define the relationship with the world and to each other. It was a culture that relied on religion and proven habits of the past to understand the present and the unknown of the future. The technological advantages of industrialization changed the definition of nature for those working in and around factories. The creation of an alternative ideology, even in its infancy, produced social challenges and changes. Industrial population centers took on a new ideological rationale: modernization.

Modernization was based on an industrial nature which looked towards of the future with little regard for the past. Urban areas took the first steps toward social realignment by questioning and redefining traditional mores and norms. As rural traditionalists and modernizing urban areas began to clash, economics came to the fore. The newfound economic influence of northern cities, combined with their position on free wage labor, was a threat to those in the agricultural South.

Before the revolution, most Americans viewed politics as a necessary evil to accomplish large general tasks. Political parties emerged due to mounting economic tensions between agricultural and industrializing sections of America. The main economic question was how much support should be diverted from agriculture to industry. Agricultural traditionalists viewed the question as an affront to their economic livelihood and way of life. A secondary question that emerged was whether the nation should be a free wage labor society or a slave owning society. As political parties grew in importance, they began to splinter and realign along geographic lines. The realigned parties became densely packed geographic entities that struggled to compromise on social, economic, or
political issues. In the final stages before the outbreak of the war, earnest attempts to form compromises were unsuccessful. In the wake of the retreating political middle ground, the final attempts at compromise resulted in secession.

The military was an institution little affected by the turmoil sweeping through the country. The result was a military that began the war fighting in a traditional fashion despite the advances of industrialization. Traditional strategy and tactics gave way to necessity as the war dragged on. Social and political pressure from both sides forced field commanders to break from traditional tactics. They exploited the advances of modernization to achieve decisive victories to bring the war to a close.

By the end of the 1862, there was intense social and political pressure from both sides to bring the war to a close. In an effort to break the enemy's will and destroy his army, generals on both sides increasingly relied on industrialization to gain decisive military advantages. The initial result of incorporating industrialization into the war expanded the battlefield to include civilians who supported the effort. Incorporating industrialization dramatically increased the size and scope of battles in the war. From the beginning of 1864 to the end of the war, some generals were able to effectively employ the industrial modern
military rationale to exploit the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the industrial of warfare.

Two generals highlighted in this study are Ulysses S. Grand and William Tecumseh Sherman. They were central figures in the latter half of the war and their final campaigns reflect the war's transformation from traditional to modern. Their application of hard war was not a new military tactic; but why they employed it was novel. They ultimately rejected the traditional military rationale in favor of a modern one. Sherman in particular aligned his thinking with industrial modernization and was able to understand the inherent weaknesses of a military wedded to civilian industrialization. Sherman's successes in
destroying the South's economic and industrial centers, communication, and railway lines helped bring the war to a close. Evidence of the impact of industrialization modernization can clearly be seen in the fact that it was the destruction of the industrial centers that produced decisive results, not slowly traditional victories on the battlefield.

Up to this point I have provided evidence of the impact of industrialization through a three-phase linear approach from pillar to pillar. To conclude the study, let us now step out of the linear presentation and overlay the three phases of the pillars on top of one another. It is at this point that the significance of the American Industrial Revolution comes to the forefront. We can see from this vantage point that its impact was highly disruptive to every significant facet of American life—all at the same time. Industrialization was the revolutionary driving force behind the transformation that occurred in America's values, mores, economy, and ultimately in the war itself. I have striven in this study to show through a multi-disciplinary approach that the American Industrial Revolution effectively explains what caused the American Civil War.


https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:253076/datastream/PDF/view

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments


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

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#2
Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2015
Industrial Modernization and the American Civil War
by Corey Patrick Gray
For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu

The central question of this thesis is what caused the American Civil War. I have sought to show in this study that the American Industrial Revolution provides the explanation. After the Industrial Revolution took hold in America, the country's social, political, and military landscape changed. The nation was transformed from holding a generally uniform mindset to one separated along ideological lines. This investigation explores positive correlations between social, political, and military events of the period and the threads that connect them. The narrative of a consistently visible ideological clash between traditional and modern rationales is not meant to create a cause-and-effect relationship between industrialization modernization and the Civil War. Yet, in light of these correlations, the ideological conflict between traditionalism and modernization does help explain how and why the period was characterized by such profound change.

Modernization and traditionalism provide vehicles for understanding the transitions that occurred after the Industrial Revolution. The impact of industrialization touched all aspects of American life. This study reviews the effects in separate social, political, and military sections to show the depth and breadth of change that occurred in those days. Each section in this study gives examples that reflect a common thread of ideological friction and change. The adversarial relationship between modernity and tradition provides predictable patterns that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by the same group of events. The pattern has three general phases: cohesion, instability, and ultimately a fracture.

The social impact of industrialization began in cities. Before the Industrial Revolution in America, the social landscape was predominantly agrarian. Most Americans looked to agriculture to define the relationship with the world and to each other. It was a culture that relied on religion and proven habits of the past to understand the present and the unknown of the future. The technological advantages of industrialization changed the definition of nature for those working in and around factories. The creation of an alternative ideology, even in its infancy, produced social challenges and changes. Industrial population centers took on a new ideological rationale: modernization.

Modernization was based on an industrial nature which looked towards of the future with little regard for the past. Urban areas took the first steps toward social realignment by questioning and redefining traditional mores and norms. As rural traditionalists and modernizing urban areas began to clash, economics came to the fore. The newfound economic influence of northern cities, combined with their position on free wage labor, was a threat to those in the agricultural South.

Before the revolution, most Americans viewed politics as a necessary evil to accomplish large general tasks. Political parties emerged due to mounting economic tensions between agricultural and industrializing sections of America. The main economic question was how much support should be diverted from agriculture to industry. Agricultural traditionalists viewed the question as an affront to their economic livelihood and way of life. A secondary question that emerged was whether the nation should be a free wage labor society or a slave owning society. As political parties grew in importance, they began to splinter and realign along geographic lines. The realigned parties became densely packed geographic entities that struggled to compromise on social, economic, or
political issues. In the final stages before the outbreak of the war, earnest attempts to form compromises were unsuccessful. In the wake of the retreating political middle ground, the final attempts at compromise resulted in secession.


The military was an institution little affected by the turmoil sweeping through the country. The result was a military that began the war fighting in a traditional fashion despite the advances of industrialization. Traditional strategy and tactics gave way to necessity as the war dragged on. Social and political pressure from both sides forced field commanders to break from traditional tactics. They exploited the advances of modernization to achieve decisive victories to bring the war to a close.

By the end of the 1862, there was intense social and political pressure from both sides to bring the war to a close. In an effort to break the enemy's will and destroy his army, generals on both sides increasingly relied on industrialization to gain decisive military advantages. The initial result of incorporating industrialization into the war expanded the battlefield to include civilians who supported the effort. Incorporating industrialization dramatically increased the size and scope of battles in the war. From the beginning of 1864 to the end of the war, some generals were able to effectively employ the industrial modern
military rationale to exploit the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the industrial of warfare.


Two generals highlighted in this study are Ulysses S. Grand and William Tecumseh Sherman. They were central figures in the latter half of the war and their final campaigns reflect the war's transformation from traditional to modern. Their application of hard war was not a new military tactic; but why they employed it was novel. They ultimately rejected the traditional military rationale in favor of a modern one. Sherman in particular aligned his thinking with industrial modernization and was able to understand the inherent weaknesses of a military wedded to civilian industrialization. Sherman's successes in
destroying the South's economic and industrial centers, communication, and railway lines helped bring the war to a close. Evidence of the impact of industrialization modernization can clearly be seen in the fact that it was the destruction of the industrial centers that produced decisive results, not slowly traditional victories on the battlefield.


Up to this point I have provided evidence of the impact of industrialization through a three-phase linear approach from pillar to pillar. To conclude the study, let us now step out of the linear presentation and overlay the three phases of the pillars on top of one another. It is at this point that the significance of the American Industrial Revolution comes to the forefront. We can see from this vantage point that its impact was highly disruptive to every significant facet of American life—all at the same time. Industrialization was the revolutionary driving force behind the transformation that occurred in America's values, mores, economy, and ultimately in the war itself. I have striven in this study to show through a multi-disciplinary approach that the American Industrial Revolution effectively explains what caused the American Civil War.

https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:253076/datastream/PDF/view

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Nice find. So it was The North's fault after all.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,630
#3
Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2015
Industrial Modernization and the American Civil War
by Corey Patrick Gray
For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu

The central question of this thesis is what caused the American Civil War. I have sought to show in this study that the American Industrial Revolution provides the explanation. After the Industrial Revolution took hold in America, the country's social, political, and military landscape changed. The nation was transformed from holding a generally uniform mindset to one separated along ideological lines. This investigation explores positive correlations between social, political, and military events of the period and the threads that connect them. The narrative of a consistently visible ideological clash between traditional and modern rationales is not meant to create a cause-and-effect relationship between industrialization modernization and the Civil War. Yet, in light of these correlations, the ideological conflict between traditionalism and modernization does help explain how and why the period was characterized by such profound change.

Modernization and traditionalism provide vehicles for understanding the transitions that occurred after the Industrial Revolution. The impact of industrialization touched all aspects of American life. This study reviews the effects in separate social, political, and military sections to show the depth and breadth of change that occurred in those days. Each section in this study gives examples that reflect a common thread of ideological friction and change. The adversarial relationship between modernity and tradition provides predictable patterns that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by the same group of events. The pattern has three general phases: cohesion, instability, and ultimately a fracture.

The social impact of industrialization began in cities. Before the Industrial Revolution in America, the social landscape was predominantly agrarian. Most Americans looked to agriculture to define the relationship with the world and to each other. It was a culture that relied on religion and proven habits of the past to understand the present and the unknown of the future. The technological advantages of industrialization changed the definition of nature for those working in and around factories. The creation of an alternative ideology, even in its infancy, produced social challenges and changes. Industrial population centers took on a new ideological rationale: modernization.

Modernization was based on an industrial nature which looked towards of the future with little regard for the past. Urban areas took the first steps toward social realignment by questioning and redefining traditional mores and norms. As rural traditionalists and modernizing urban areas began to clash, economics came to the fore. The newfound economic influence of northern cities, combined with their position on free wage labor, was a threat to those in the agricultural South.

Before the revolution, most Americans viewed politics as a necessary evil to accomplish large general tasks. Political parties emerged due to mounting economic tensions between agricultural and industrializing sections of America. The main economic question was how much support should be diverted from agriculture to industry. Agricultural traditionalists viewed the question as an affront to their economic livelihood and way of life. A secondary question that emerged was whether the nation should be a free wage labor society or a slave owning society. As political parties grew in importance, they began to splinter and realign along geographic lines. The realigned parties became densely packed geographic entities that struggled to compromise on social, economic, or
political issues. In the final stages before the outbreak of the war, earnest attempts to form compromises were unsuccessful. In the wake of the retreating political middle ground, the final attempts at compromise resulted in secession.


The military was an institution little affected by the turmoil sweeping through the country. The result was a military that began the war fighting in a traditional fashion despite the advances of industrialization. Traditional strategy and tactics gave way to necessity as the war dragged on. Social and political pressure from both sides forced field commanders to break from traditional tactics. They exploited the advances of modernization to achieve decisive victories to bring the war to a close.

By the end of the 1862, there was intense social and political pressure from both sides to bring the war to a close. In an effort to break the enemy's will and destroy his army, generals on both sides increasingly relied on industrialization to gain decisive military advantages. The initial result of incorporating industrialization into the war expanded the battlefield to include civilians who supported the effort. Incorporating industrialization dramatically increased the size and scope of battles in the war. From the beginning of 1864 to the end of the war, some generals were able to effectively employ the industrial modern
military rationale to exploit the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the industrial of warfare.


Two generals highlighted in this study are Ulysses S. Grand and William Tecumseh Sherman. They were central figures in the latter half of the war and their final campaigns reflect the war's transformation from traditional to modern. Their application of hard war was not a new military tactic; but why they employed it was novel. They ultimately rejected the traditional military rationale in favor of a modern one. Sherman in particular aligned his thinking with industrial modernization and was able to understand the inherent weaknesses of a military wedded to civilian industrialization. Sherman's successes in
destroying the South's economic and industrial centers, communication, and railway lines helped bring the war to a close. Evidence of the impact of industrialization modernization can clearly be seen in the fact that it was the destruction of the industrial centers that produced decisive results, not slowly traditional victories on the battlefield.


Up to this point I have provided evidence of the impact of industrialization through a three-phase linear approach from pillar to pillar. To conclude the study, let us now step out of the linear presentation and overlay the three phases of the pillars on top of one another. It is at this point that the significance of the American Industrial Revolution comes to the forefront. We can see from this vantage point that its impact was highly disruptive to every significant facet of American life—all at the same time. Industrialization was the revolutionary driving force behind the transformation that occurred in America's values, mores, economy, and ultimately in the war itself. I have striven in this study to show through a multi-disciplinary approach that the American Industrial Revolution effectively explains what caused the American Civil War.

https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:253076/datastream/PDF/view

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Very useful. And in my view, as I think you know from another thread, the railroad was the greatest example of the industrial revolution.

Thanks for this very useful citation. It looks like not everyone is satisfied with slavery as the primary cause of the late unpleasantness.
 

jackt62

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,172
Location
New York City
#4
"Caused" the Civil War? Seems like a leap of faith to make that statement. No doubt that the north's industrialization and advocacy of free labor were stark differences with the southern plantation economy of enslaved labor. But the issue of slavery, the actual cause of the war, was festering from the days of the American Revolution, but was kept under wraps by a series of compromises and political will power. The speed up in industrialization simply hastened the inevitable clash between north and south but in and of itself did not cause the war.
 

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,465
Location
Midwest
#6
...After the Industrial Revolution took hold in America, the country's social, political, and military landscape changed. The nation was transformed from holding a generally uniform mindset to one separated along ideological lines...
Naivety no. 1. The nation was never of "generally uniform mindset." Far from it. It therefore didn't (because of the IR, TRR, or any other reason) "change" into a nation separated by ideological lines. It was that all along. Have you not seen the musical "Hamilton."?

...Before the revolution, most Americans viewed politics as a necessary evil to accomplish large general tasks...
Naivety no. 2. After the revolution, most Americans yet viewed politics as a necessary evil to accomplish large general tasks. No difference in the slightest from before the revolution. For instance, Manifest destiny -- an ultimate reliance on the national politic --would develop after the revolution.

...Political parties emerged due to mounting economic tensions between agricultural and industrializing sections of America. The main economic question was how much support should be diverted from agriculture to industry...
Naivety no. 3. The main economic question was how to structure a monetary system that would provide capitol for any kind of enterprise, Agricultural or Industrial. Great advancements were being made in each, and they were co-dependent - i.e. development of things like cotton gins and reapers, btw made of steel.

...A secondary question that emerged was whether the nation should be a free wage labor society or a slave owning society...
Bingo. The very question that, proving to be unresolvable politically, would lead to the Civil War.

...The realigned parties became densely packed geographic entities that struggled to compromise on social, economic, or political issues. In the final stages before the outbreak of the war, earnest attempts to form compromises were unsuccessful. In the wake of the retreating political middle ground, the final attempts at compromise resulted in secession...
Naivety no. 4. It was not the final attempts at compromise that resulted in secession. It was the failure of those attempts that resulted in secession, clearly.

...By the end of the 1862, there was intense social and political pressure from both sides to bring the war to a close. In an effort to break the enemy's will and destroy his army, generals on both sides increasingly relied on industrialization to gain decisive military advantages...Incorporating industrialization dramatically increased the size and scope of battles in the war...[etc. etc]
True, but to understand that by this time these events had nothing to do with the cause of the war.

...successes in destroying the South's economic and industrial centers, communication, and railway lines helped bring the war to a close. Evidence of the impact of industrialization modernization can clearly be seen in the fact that it was the destruction of the industrial centers that produced decisive results, not slowly traditional victories on the battlefield...
Though true, it's something already well understood by everyone, certainly all academic historians. There's just no revelation there. And again, by this time these events had nothing to do with the cause of the war.

...It is at this point that the significance of the American Industrial Revolution comes to the forefront... Industrialization was the revolutionary driving force behind the transformation that occurred in America's values, mores, economy, and ultimately in the war itself. I have striven in this study to show through a multi-disciplinary approach that the American Industrial Revolution effectively explains what caused the American Civil War...
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Cause and effect very much mangled here. Flawed conclusion. The industrial, agricultural and military sectors were all affected by Industrialization after the revolution, North and South, before and during the Civil War, in a time when the entire Western world was similarly affected - England in particular. Industrialization, though a struggle, was not politically irreconcilable. Industrialization in the transportation sector in particular was a boon to everyone, North and South, urban and rural.

So it was not Industrialization, but slavery and solely it, that was the thing that brought the United States to Civil War. Unlike those pesky Industrialization issues, there was no reconciling chattel slavery between the sections.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You know, I resent that just about anything, even the flightiest of sophomoric theories like this one are introduced unvetted in (what seems to be) a manic search for any cause (any cause at all) besides slavery to be the primary cause of secession, the Confederacy, and the Civil War. Plainly, actual Secessionists and Confederates at the time had no illusions about it. The scramble didn't begin until the post-war, and apparently continues even today, in 2019.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#7
"Caused" the Civil War? Seems like a leap of faith to make that statement. No doubt that the north's industrialization and advocacy of free labor were stark differences with the southern plantation economy of enslaved labor. But the issue of slavery, the actual cause of the war, was festering from the days of the American Revolution, but was kept under wraps by a series of compromises and political will power. The speed up in industrialization simply hastened the inevitable clash between north and south but in and of itself did not cause the war.
Without industrialization, the pressure of free labor would not be there as a factor. No free labor pressure no clash about slavery in the territories. Slavery may have been an issue, but without industrialization, the North would not have had the influx of immigrants. Without industrialization in England, there is no demand for cotton, the sugar rush that powered the expansion of slavery in the South and Industrialization needed sugar for the tea needed to keep workers going at the mills and no sugar demand means no slaves in the Carribean and since the slaves sold in North American were surplus from the Carribean, there are no slaves in North America.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,921
Location
Denver, CO
#8
Year Immigration
184478,615
1845114,731
1846154,416
1847224,968
1848226,527
1849297,024
1850369,980
1851379,466
1852371,603
1853368,645
1854427,833
1855200,877
1856200,436
1857251,306
1858123,126
1859 121,286
1860 153,640
Total 4,064,479
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#9
Naivety no. 1. The nation was never of "generally uniform mindset." Far from it. It therefore didn't (because of the IR, TRR, or any other reason) "change" into a nation separated by ideological lines. It was that all along. Have you not seen the musical "Hamilton."?


Naivety no. 2. After the revolution, most Americans yet viewed politics as a necessary evil to accomplish large general tasks. No difference in the slightest from before the revolution. For instance, Manifest destiny -- an ultimate reliance on the national politic --would develop after the revolution.


Naivety no. 3. The main economic question was how to structure a monetary system that would provide capitol for any kind of enterprise, Agricultural or Industrial. Great advancements were being made in each, and they were co-dependent - i.e. development of things like cotton gins and reapers, btw made of steel.


Bingo. The very question that, proving to be unresolvable politically, would lead to the Civil War.


Naivety no. 4. It was not the final attempts at compromise that resulted in secession. It was the failure of those attempts that resulted in secession, clearly.



True, but to understand that by this time these events had nothing to do with the cause of the war.


Though true, it's something already well understood by everyone, certainly all academic historians. There's just no revelation there. And again, by this time these events had nothing to do with the cause of the war.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Cause and effect very much mangled here. Flawed conclusion. The industrial, agricultural and military sectors were all affected by Industrialization after the revolution, North and South, before and during the Civil War, in a time when the entire Western world was similarly affected - England in particular. Industrialization, though a struggle, was not politically irreconcilable. Industrialization in the transportation sector in particular was a boon to everyone, North and South, urban and rural.

So it was not Industrialization, but slavery and solely it, that was the thing that brought the United States to Civil War. Unlike those pesky Industrialization issues, there was no reconciling chattel slavery between the sections.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You know, I resent that just about anything, even the flightiest of sophomoric theories like this one are introduced unvetted in (what seems to be) a manic search for any cause (any cause at all) besides slavery to be the primary cause of secession, the Confederacy, and the Civil War. Plainly, actual Secessionists and Confederates at the time had no illusions about it. The scramble didn't begin until the post-war, and apparently continues even today, in 2019.
The US was uniform at the beginning of the Revolution, a crack appearing at the Constitution. It was cotton that led to Slavery as a social good in the South. It was commerce and industry that let to free labor being a social good in the North. Slavery was tolerated by the North until the 1850s when the South committed political overreach trying to make slavery national. In 1860 there was no more compromises and then war. Slavery powered the split, but 2 civilizations in one nation was the cause.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#14
Very useful. And in my view, as I think you know from another thread, the railroad was the greatest example of the industrial revolution.

Thanks for this very useful citation. It looks like not everyone is satisfied with slavery as the primary cause of the late unpleasantness.
Slavery is the primary cause of the late unpleasantness, but there are complications. The first is why?
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,921
Location
Denver, CO
#15
Britain and Germany shed their rebellious poor people and a large % of them went to the US. In America they chose a constitutional means of rebelling, by voting. The secessionists reacted.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2016
Messages
23
Location
Louisiana
#16
I wouldn't say slavery is the direct cause of the war though it is an important factor.
The direct cause of the war was secession and secession was due to slavery, so it all points back to slavery but it wasn't the direct cause of the war.

I will say that the industrial revolution and the cotton gin did cause a significant rise in slavery, and that if slavery had not increased the south may never have succeed, and if the south didn't secede then there wouldn't have been a war. So I guess if you want to trace it back far enough you could make a small argument that the industrial revolution contributed to the war.

The fact is slavery was not the primary reason for the war. Slavery was the primary reason for secession, but the war had very little to do with slavery itself.
 

JPK Huson 1863

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
18,124
Location
Central Pennsylvania
#17
Anyone know how he did defending the thesis?


Slavery powered the split, but 2 civilizations in one nation was the cause

I know what you mean but is it the best phrase? Civilization gets stretched to mean an awful of things- have seen this stretched to ' Two countries, one nation ', which seems kind of dangerous as we continue to try gluing ourselves together. Most countries ( I say most because someone will come up with a country whose entire society really is based on one thing ) develop various sources feeding the economy- agriculture and industry may be separate sources but the social norms, customs and general way of life by citizens pursuing each can't be called separate civilizations, can they?

I don't know. Yes, will receive definitions in reply, all of which can be fitted over North and South respectively. :angel: Thing is, I can swear, wiggle and shoehorn my way into my 10 year old jeans but never kid myself the stupid things fit. Genuinely not arguing, something doesn't seem quite right, that's all.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#18
Anyone know how he did defending the thesis?

I know what you mean but is it the best phrase? Civilization gets stretched to mean an awful of things- have seen this stretched to ' Two countries, one nation ', which seems kind of dangerous as we continue to try gluing ourselves together. Most countries ( I say most because someone will come up with a country whose entire society really is based on one thing ) develop various sources feeding the economy- agriculture and industry may be separate sources but the social norms, customs and general way of life by citizens pursuing each can't be called separate civilizations, can they?

I don't know. Yes, will receive definitions in reply, all of which can be fitted over North and South respectively. :angel: Thing is, I can swear, wiggle and shoehorn my way into my 10 year old jeans but never kid myself the stupid things fit. Genuinely not arguing, something doesn't seem quite right, that's all.
The idea powering his thesis has been made before. Too often here the fight is was it slavery or not. Once we concede slavery, then we can look into the why. Slavery was dominantly uncontroversial until the 18th century. 7 or 8 millennia, then it falls apart in about a century 1770-1880. Why? In the US, had the North not changed, there would be no Civil War. If England had not changed, there would be no Civil War. The common thread is industrialization. For some reason, industrialization gave folks the time and motive to implement the enlightenment. To turn unfree labor of those 7 or 8 millennia into free labor in a century.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2018
Messages
552
Location
Tucson, Arizona
#19
The US was uniform at the beginning of the Revolution, a crack appearing at the Constitution. It was cotton that led to Slavery as a social good in the South. It was commerce and industry that let to free labor being a social good in the North. Slavery was tolerated by the North until the 1850s when the South committed political overreach trying to make slavery national. In 1860 there was no more compromises and then war. Slavery powered the split, but 2 civilizations in one nation was the cause.
...and certainly commercialized industrialization brought that stark reality to the forefront.

I believe, however, given enough time the increase in industrialization of agriculture would have had a similar impact on the Southerners view of labor as well. It would have been a prolonged and painful change... but then again, four years of bloodshed was long and painful enough.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2018
Messages
552
Location
Tucson, Arizona
#20
The idea powering his thesis has been made before. Too often here the fight is was it slavery or not. Once we concede slavery, then we can look into the why. Slavery was dominantly uncontroversial until the 18th century. 7 or 8 millennia, then it falls apart in about a century 1770-1880. Why? In the US, had the North not changed, there would be no Civil War. If England had not changed, there would be no Civil War. The common thread is industrialization. For some reason, industrialization gave folks the time and motive to implement the enlightenment. To turn unfree labor of those 7 or 8 millennia into free labor in a century.
Spot on, IMHO.
 



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