The Confederate Diaspora

[jgoodguy]

The Confederate Diaspora

Many Southerners were pessimistic about the region's economic future. Partly because of the monetary value of slaves, in 1860 seven of the 10 states with the highest per capita wealth would join the Confederacy. Much of that wealth was wiped out, and today Virginia is the only former rebel state to rank among the top 10 in per capita income, while five of the bottom 10 are former Confederate states. The classic example is Mississippi, which ranked No. 1 in 1860, and 50th in the 2010 census.

It took 85 years for the South's per capita income to return to where it was in 1860 — an already low 72 percent of the national average. (The delay partly reflected protective tariffs, which were injurious to the South's export economy and lasted until after World War II.) Not surprisingly, such concerns put Southerners on the move, either outside the region or to less war-torn parts of it, like Texas. In 1860 Texas ranked ninth among the Southern states in population; 20 years later it was first.

 

[diane]

This is a great subject. Western history was very, very much impacted by this diaspora - not everybody could afford a trip to England, Mexico, Cuba or Brazil! Places hard hit by the war, like Mississippi, were visibly devastated for years after the war. A prospective investor for one of Forrest's railroads took a tour with him and was shocked how bad the country looked. This was about six years after the fighting had stopped. Some people had to take a hike because their farms, orchards, wheat fields, etc were now gigantic burial grounds. For example, part of the battle of Franklin took place in a farmer's field and right on his very doorstep. After the fighting stopped, he and his family crawled out of their cellar and saw a cannon blown apart on the walkway, seven dead horses in the yard and about a dozen dead men with them. The place was shot to slivers. "My God!" he exclaimed. "We're going to have to move!" That field was sold and the new owner proposed to plant, despite the fact that there were 1,400 soldiers buried there. They were removed by the McGavocks. Every battle seemed to lean uncommon hard on people like this farmer.

 

[southern blue]

This is a great subject. Western history was very, very much impacted by this diaspora - not everybody could afford a trip to England, Mexico, Cuba or Brazil! Places hard hit by the war, like Mississippi, were visibly devastated for years after the war. A prospective investor for one of Forrest's railroads took a tour with him and was shocked how bad the country looked. This was about six years after the fighting had stopped. Some people had to take a hike because their farms, orchards, wheat fields, etc were now gigantic burial grounds. For example, part of the battle of Franklin took place in a farmer's field and right on his very doorstep. After the fighting stopped, he and his family crawled out of their cellar and saw a cannon blown apart on the walkway, seven dead horses in the yard and about a dozen dead men with them. The place was shot to slivers. "My God!" he exclaimed. "We're going to have to move!" That field was sold and the new owner proposed to plant, despite the fact that there were 1,400 soldiers buried there. They were removed by the McGavocks. Every battle seemed to lean uncommon hard on people like this farmer.

I agree. This is an interesting subject and I did not know that about Mississippi.

However I do wonder about Virginia. If any state was messed up it was here. I can remember the descriptions of the soldiers as they passed into Maryland mentioned how green and pretty the country was compared to Virginia. It confused me because as far as I knew the parts of Virginia where they had just come from were 'green and pretty' and not that much different from Maryland and Pennsylvania. It then hit me how much of an effect the war had on the land. It tore it up and beat it down, burned it...ravaged it.

I do wonder though how it was that Virginia was able to bounce back so well.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

Great post. I had no idea just how bad it was--Mississippi, from #1 to #50! Amazing and sadly interesting. Look forward to more on this...

 

[brass napoleon]

I agree. This is an interesting subject and I did not know that about Mississippi.

However I do wonder about Virginia. If any state was messed up it was here. I can remember the descriptions of the soldiers as they passed into Maryland mentioned how green and pretty the country was compared to Virginia. It confused me because as far as I knew the parts of Virginia where they had just come from were 'green and pretty' and not that much different from Maryland and Pennsylvania. It then hit me how much of an effect the war had on the land. It tore it up and beat it down, burned it...ravaged it.

I do wonder though how it was that Virginia was able to bounce back so well.

I think the answer to that question is that Virginia didn't have all its eggs in the slave-based agriculture basket. For decade Southern leaders had been predicting economic ruin for the South if slavery was abolished (this not even taking into account a civil war that might kill and maim hundreds of thousands of able young men):

"He who regards slavery in those states simply under the relation of master and slave, as important as that relation is, viewed merely as a question of property to the slaveholding section of the Union, has a very imperfect conception of the institution, and the impossibility of abolishing it without disasters unexampled in the history of the world. To understand its nature and importance fully, it must be borne in mind that slavery... involves not only the relation of master and slave, but also the social and political relations of two races, of nearly equal numbers, from different quarters of the globe, and the most opposite of all others in every particular that distinguishes one race of men from another. Emancipation would destroy these relations - would divest the masters of their property, and subvert the relation, social and political, that has existed between the races from almost the first settlement of the Southern States...

To destroy the existing relations, would be to destroy this prosperity, and to place the two races in a state of conflict, which must end in the expulsion or extirpation of one or the other. No other can be substituted compatible with their peace or security."

- John C. Calhoun, February 4, 1836

Source: <http://books.google.com/books?id=CotLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA195
​

Virginia and other northern tier states were wise enough to diversify. But states like South Carolina and Mississippi instead chose to double-down on the very institution that they were already so dependent on. When it went, much of their wealth and prosperity went with it, even though they may not have experienced the ravages of battle to the same degree of their more northern sister states.