The Differences between the Antebellum North and South


(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
State by State stats on newspaper. Looking for 1860, but statistical abstracts disappeared until the 1880s.
The Press, from the 7th Census (1850). XLS spreadsheet
Miscellaneous tables giving circulation by state (with comparisons for 1810, 1828, and 1840), by publication frequency, by character (literary, independent, political, religious, and scientific), and by major metropolitan areas, and other.
From above with 2 added columns -- Civil War Status and % of the total. Limitations include early date ending 1840 and lack of population figures.



p0.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
From the 1860 Census

Banks and Insurance, Real and Personal Estate, The Public Press [4.6 MB]

The tabular statement appended to this report, relating to this subject, strikingly illustrates the fact that the people of the United States are peculiarly "a newspaper-reading nation," and serves to show how large a portion of their reading is political. Of 4,051 papers and periodicals published in the United States at the date of the census of 1860, three thousand two hundred and forty-two, or 80.02 per cent., were political in their character. Two hundred and ninety-eight, or 7.38 percent., 111'0 devoted to literature. Religion and theology compose the province of two hundred and seventy-seven, or 6.83 per cent., while two hundred and thirty-four, or 5.77 per cent., are classed as miscellaneous. The last decade in our civil history has been one of extraordinary political agitation. Accordingly, we find that there has been a very large increase in the number of political papers and periodicals, as compared with corresponding publications At the date of the preceding census. In 1850 their number was 1,630. In 1860 it was 3,242, being an increase of nearly 100 percent In 1850 the number of religious paper and periodicals was 191. In 1860 it was stated at 277, being an increase of 45 percent. In 1850 the number of papers and periodicals of ~very class in the United States was 2,526. In 1860 the aggregate under this head reaches, as before stated, 4,051, showing a rate of increase of 60.37. The total circulation of all kinds amounted in 1850 to 426,409,978 copies. In 1860 the annual circulation is stated at 927,951,548 copies, showing a ratio of increase of 117.61.

 
Last edited:

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,129
Noted and read. But I still believe that you are missing @OpnCoronet 's point.
Which, as I read it, is that the education systems at that time, in the South largely remained closed to the vast majority of Southerners, except the for the elite. Whereas in the North, they were beginning to offer expanded opportunities for those outside the traditional ruling class. The South continued to hold fast to tradition and thus less diversity of opinion and little chance for change.
Your examples of Lincoln are those of someone who strove to rise above the limited opportunities that life on the "frontier" presented. And what happened there as Illinois, "grew up"? More education opportunities flourished. Whereas in the South... A better question would be, would Abe have been able to rise in the South, of that time, due to his lowly beginning?
That is how I read it Robert. Who were the decision makers both North and South and from whence they came. And how.

Edit for clarity



I agree. To me, it is the difference in mindset of those, who view an educated polity, as a necessity in a nation, that claimed to draw its authority to govern from those it governed, as compared to those who tended viewed universal education, as more of a threat, to governmental authority and social stability, than a blessing..
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I agree. To me, it is the difference in mindset of those, who view an educated polity, as a necessity in a nation, that claimed to draw its authority to govern from those it governed, as compared to those who tended viewed universal education, as more of a threat, to governmental authority and social stability, than a blessing..
I'd put it as those who viewed what was important to them as elites got government funding and what was not did not.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,129
They worked hard on what was basically frontier. They were literate, curious and used whatever educational opportunities were available to them at the time. I don’t think they were very much different from the vast majority of other Americans making their way through life.

What you seem to be saying is that the rural education system in the pre-war North was turning out future Rhodes Scholars like so many ears on a corn stalk.




Your speculation on what I am saying on this thread, is incorrect..








 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The Differences between the Antebellum North and South by JAMES M. MCPHERSON
From James M. McPherson, “Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism: A New Look at an Old Question,” Civil
War History, Volume 29, #3, 1983, pp. 230—244. Copyright © 1983. Reprinted by permission of The Kent State University Press. The Differences between the Antebellum North ... - The American Story
Emphasis mine.

The bias as I see it is we tend to regard the Northern worldview as the mainline view, that somehow the South was an exception to the rule and if only they had got with the program the Civil War would not have happened. Is that historically correct?

In all of the areas discussed above—urbanization, industrialization, labor force, demographic structure, violence and martial values, education, and attitudes toward change—contemporaries accurately perceived significant differences between North and South, differences that in most respects were increasing over time. The question remains: were these differences crucial enough to make the South an exception to generalizations about antebellum America?
Maybe not. Maybe the North changed and its world was different from the world of the founding.

This essay concludes by suggesting a tentative answer to the question: perhaps it was the North that was “different,” the North that departed from the mainstream of historical development; and perhaps therefore we should speak not of Southern exceptionalism but of Northern exceptionalism. This idea is borrowed shamelessly from C. Vann Woodward, who applied it, however, to the post—Civil War United States. In essays written during the 1950s on “The Irony of Southern History” and “The Search for Southern Identity,” Woodward suggested that, unlike other Americans but like most people in the rest of the world, Southerners had experienced poverty, failure, defeat, and had a skepticism about “progress” that grows out of such experiences. The South thus ’ shared a bond with the rest of humankind that other Americans did not share. This theme of Northern exceptionalism might well be applied also to the antebellum United States-- not for Woodward’s categories of defeat, poverty, and failure, but for the categories of a persistent folk culture discussed in this essay.
"The Irony of Southern History" (A summary of the work. )

The South has had its full share of illusions, fantasies, and pretensions, and it has continued to cling to some of them with an astonishing tenacity that defies explanation. But the illusion that "history is something unpleasant that happens to other people" is certainly not one of them - not in the face of accumulated evidence and memory to the contrary. It is true that there have been many Southern converts to the gospel of progress and success, and there was even a period following Reconstruction when it seemed possible that these converts might carry a reluctant region with them. But the conversion was never anywhere near complete. Full participation in the legend of irresistible progress, success, and victory could, after all, only be vicarious at best. For the inescapable facts of history were that the South had repeatedly met with frustration and failure. It had learned what it was to be faced with economic, social, and political problems that refused to yield to all the ingenuity, patience, and intelligence that a people could bring to bear upon them. It had learned to accommodate itself to conditions that it swore it would never accept, and it had learned the taste left in the mouth by the swallowing of one's own words. It had learned to live for long decades in quite un-American poverty, and it had learned the equally un-American lesson of submission. For the South had undergone an experience that it could share with no other part of America-though it is shared by nearly all the peoples of Europe and Asia-the experience of military defeat, occupation, and reconstruction.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The Burden of Southern History an essay written for a blog. Emphasis mine.

Debates concerning the origins and nature of southern distinctiveness have occurred since the antebellum era. Southerners themselves initially cited their region’s political system, which was deeply rooted in the “peculiar institution” of slavery and state-based government, as the South’s most distinctive feature. Historians and southerners writing after the Civil War, including proponents of the Lost Cause, argued that the South’s “innocence, traditionalism, virtuousness, and purity” separated the South from a more modern, “aggressive,” and industrialized North—a proposition that held sway up through the middle of the twentieth century.

During the early and mid-twentieth century, Woodward writes, the notion of southern distinctiveness acquired new meaning as Americans began to embrace and promote the idea of “American exceptionalism” on a truly global scale. This so-called “national myth” portrayed America as a global leader that had never known defeat and whose foundations rested upon an eternal commitment to liberty and morality. Woodward argues that, in order to justify this “national myth,” Americans used the South as its scapegoat for its previous moral and political failures, including slavery, civil war, and periodic economic troubles. By “dumping” its historical and moral burdens on the South, Americans thus were able to purge their own (perceived) triumphant national history of its historical baggage; such efforts, in turn, resulted in the increasing differentiation between “mainstream” America and the South and in the perpetuation of the myth of southern distinctiveness. Therefore Woodward argues, in reality, the South is not as inherently unique as we, as a nation, have come to believe; rather, it is the South’s experiences—of defeat and of an imagined separatism—that have made it seem so distinct.

Woodward’s brilliant analysis of the South’s history, identity and place in American memory shows that southern history is “messy,” ironic, paradoxical, and a complex mix of “lived” experience, myth, and imagination
. Woodward writes that truth and meaning from the emotionally-charged historical debates over the South’s contested history is perhaps best found in the work of the poet or an author such as William Faulkner who might better understand the relationship of myth and reality. Woodward proves himself more than worthy as a conveyor of such truth and meaning. Indeed, Woodward serves as a sort of poet-historian who understands, far better than most writers, the burden of the past on the present, and vice versa.​
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The Differences between the Antebellum North and South by JAMES M. MCPHERSON
From James M. McPherson, “Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism: A New Look at an Old Question,” Civil
War History, Volume 29, #3, 1983, pp. 230—244. Copyright © 1983. Reprinted by permission of The Kent State University Press. The Differences between the Antebellum North ... - The American Story
Emphasis mine.

Maybe there is something to the secessionists claim that the North corrupted the republic and the constitution.

At the beginning of the republic, the North and South were less different in most of these categories than they became later. Nearly all Northern states had slavery in 1776, and the institution persisted in some of them for decades thereafter. The ethnic homogeneity of Northern and Southern whites was quite similar before 1830. The proportion of urban dwellers was similarly small and the percentage of the labor force employed in agriculture similarly large in 1800. The Northern predominance in commerce and manufacturing was not so great as it later became. Nor was the contrast in education and literacy as great as it subsequently became. A belief in progress and commitments to reform or radicalism were no more prevalent in the North than in the South in 1800—The North and South Compared 29 indeed, they may have been less so. In 1776, in 1800, even as late as 1820, the similarity in values and institutions was the salient fact. Within the next generation, difference and conflict became prominent. This happened primarily because of developments in the North. The South changed relatively little, and ”because so many Northern changes seemed threatening, the South developed a defensive ideology that resisted change.

The Antebellum South was like much of the world.

In most of these respects the South resembled a majority ofthe societies in the world more than the changing North did. Despite the abolition of legal slavery or serfdom throughout much ofthe western hemisphere and western Europe, much of the world— , like the South—had an unfree or quasi—free labor force. Most societies in the world remained predominantly rural, agricultural, and labor—intensive; most, including even several European conntries, had illiteracy rates as high or higher than the South’s 45 percent; most like the South remained bound by traditional values and networks of family, kinship, hierarchy, and patriarchy. The North—along with a few countries in northwestern Europe—hurtled forward eagerly toward a future that many Southerners found distasteful if not frightening; the South remained proudly and even defiantly rooted in the past.
Secession was a preemptive counter-revolution to prevent the Black Republican revolution from engulfing the South. In this view, slavery is only a part of an impulse to save a society.

Thus when secessionists protested in 1861 that they were acting to preserve traditional rights and values, they were correct.
They fought to protect their constitutional liberties against the perceived Northern threat to overthrow them. The South’s concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North’s had. With complete sincerity the South fought to preserve its version of the republic of the founding fathers—a government of limited powers that protected the rights ofproperty and whose constituency comprised an independent gentry and yeomanry of the white race undisturbed by large cities, heartless factories, restless free workers, and class conflict. The accession to power of the Republican party, with its ideology of competitive, egalitarian, free-labor capitalism, was a signal to the South that the Northern majority had turned irrevocably toward this frightening, revolutionary future. Indeed, the Black Republican party appeared to the eyes of many Southerners as “essentially a revolutionary party” composed of “a motley throng of Sans culottes . . . Infidels and freelovers, interspersed by Bloomer women, fugitive slaves, and amalgamationists.” Therefore secession was a preemptive counter-revolution to prevent the Black Republican revolution from engulfing the South. “We are not revolutionists,” insisted James D. B. DeBow and Jefferson Davis during the Civil War. “We are resisting revolution. . . . We are not engaged in a Quixotic fight for the rights of man; our struggle is for inherited rights. . . . We are upholding the true doctrines of the Federal Constitution. We are conservative.”
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The Differences between the Antebellum North and South by JAMES M. MCPHERSON
From James M. McPherson, “Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism: A New Look at an Old Question,” Civil
War History, Volume 29, #3, 1983, pp. 230—244. Copyright © 1983. Reprinted by permission of The Kent State University Press. The Differences between the Antebellum North ... - The American Story
Emphasis mine.

We conclude this article.

The revolutionary North won the right to determine the American Vision. The vision that would drive the United States for the next century or more.

Union victory in the war destroyed the Southern vision of America and insured that the Northern vision would become the American vision. Until 1861, however, it was the North that was out of the mainstream, not the South. Of course the Northern states, along with Britain and a few countries in northwestern Europe, were cutting a new channel in world history that would doubtless have become the mainstream even if the American Civil War had not happened. But it did happen, and for Americans it marked the turning point. A Louisiana planter who returned home sadly after the war wrote in 1865: “Society has been completely changed by the war. The [French] revolution of ’89 did not produce a greater change in the ‘Ancien Regime’ than has this in our social life.” And four years later George Ticknor, a retired Harvard professor, concluded that the Civil War had created a “great gulf between what happened before in our century and what has happened since, or what is likely to happen hereafter. It does not seem to me as if I were living in the country in which I was born.” From the war sprang the great flood that wrenched the stream of American history into a new channel and transferred the burden of exceptionalism from North to South.​
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,634
Location
Denver, CO
Good thread. It presumes that something called the South existed and it seceded from the United States. It is an interesting view, but people formed the secessionist conspiracy, not the land. The secessionists were fine with the conflict between the sections, as long as they and their New York allies could pursue the joint empire under the dream of manifest destiny.
The differences became paramount when the secessionists could no longer control the federal government.
The differences were there, but the crisis was triggered by the loss of an election triggered by the secessionists manipulating the sectional differences within the Democratic party.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,129
This is an interesting link, especially the part about the "penny papers."

http://www.historynet.com/antebellum-period


it seems to me, that the historynet Post, is describing the different results of the presence or absence of an Institution of Chattle Slavery, i.e., I do not believe, there would have been any significant difference between the North and South in ante-bellum America.

To me, the very fact that there was a political North And South Line, dividing the Union, Or, that there was such a time known as the Ante-Bellum Years in America's History Books, etc., are all due specifically to the existence of the institution of Slavery.
 

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,253
The Differences between the Antebellum North and South by JAMES M. MCPHERSON
From James M. McPherson, “Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism: A New Look at an Old Question,” Civil
War History, Volume 29, #3, 1983, pp. 230—244. Copyright © 1983. Reprinted by permission of The Kent State University Press. The Differences between the Antebellum North ... - The American Story

Emphasis mine.

Why was it so bad that a war broke out just because the Yankees were politically dominant? What about that political dominance so adored the Southerners that they could not live in the same country as the Northerners. Why did the Northerners not see things the Southern way and accommodate it? Why the rage for a war of the secessionists. There was something going on other than mere slavery. There were 2 Americas and 2 sets of Americans in a single country. No wonder there was war and bloodshed.

Many antebellum Americans certainly thought that North and South had evolved separate societies with institutions, interests, values, and ideologies so incompatible, so much in deadly conflict that they could no longer live together in the same nation. Traveling through the South in the spring of 1861, London Times correspondent William Howard Russell encountered this Conflict of Civilizations" theme everywhere he went. The tone in which [Southerners] alluded to the whole of the Northern people indicated the clear conviction that trade, commerce, the pursuit of gain, manufacture, and the base mechanical arts, had so degraded the whole race” that Southerners could no longer tolerate association with them, wrote Russell. “There is a degree of something like ferocity in the Southern mind [especially] toward New England which exceeds belief.” A South Carolinian told Russell: “We are an agricultural people, pursuing our own system, and working out our own destiny, breeding up women and men with some other purpose than to make them vulgar, fanatical, cheating Yankees.” Louis Wigfall of Texas, a former US. senator, told Russell: “We are a peculiar people, Sir! . . . We are an agricultural people. . . . We have no cities—we don’t want them. . . . We want no manufactures: we desire no trading, no mechanical or manufactUring clasSes. . . ..As long as we have our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, and our cotton, we can command wealth to purchase all we want. . . . But with the Yankees we will never trade—never. Not one pound of cotton shall ever go from the South to their accursed cities.”(1)

Such opinions were not universal in the South, of course, but in the fevered atmosphere of the late 18503 they were widely shared. “Free Society!” exclaimed a Georgia newspaper. “We sicken at the name. What is it but a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, filthy operatives, small—fisted farmers, and moon—struck theorists . . . hardly fit for association with a southern gentleman’s body servant.” (2)In 1861 the Southern Literary Messenger explained to its readers: “It is not a question of slavery alone that we are called upon to decide. It is free society which we must shun or embrace.”(3) In the same year Charles Colcock Jones, Jr.———no fire—eater, for after all he had graduated from Princeton and from Harvard Law School—spoke of the development of antagonistic cultures in North and South: “In this country have arisen two races [i.e., Northerners and Southerners] which, although claiming a common parentage, have been so entirely separated by climate, by morals, by religion, and by estimates so totally opposite to all that constitutes honor, truth, and manliness, that they cannot longer exist under the same government.”

1. My Diary North and South, Volume 1 By Sir William Howard Russell P 179 Link
2. Chambers's Journal, Volume 27 By William Chambers, Robert Chambers P 9 Link
3. Southern Literary Messenger, Volumes 32-33 P 152 Link
Just out of curiosity ; Could the events of the 50's ,Bleeding Kansas,the border conflicts in Kansas and Nebraska , John Brown,the formation of the Republican party with its anti slavery platform /Fremontand the threats of the South's secession,the fact that neither side was willing to compromise due to the fact there was nothing to compromise over and the chief political spokesmen were dead ,even in 1860 no side was really willing to listen to the other.Then no one really believed ,even Lincoln ,that the South would carry their threat out,till the firing on Sumter.Could all this played a large part in the eventual conflict ? The main thing was there was no Clay ,no Webster ,or even John Q.Adams,and esp. there was no one in the South with the voice to persuade the leaders of the movement to halt and realize the real effects of this .Jackson being one of them ,a slave owner and from Ten.,was the last one who the South would listen to even under the threat to S,Carolina. If there had been a weaker president would the other states had followed.? The 50's would be the time that set everything into motion .With the formation of the Republican party and the acceptance of radical parties into it ,the anti slavery now had a strong base to attack the institute of slavery and then the South for its failure of doing away with it and its seemingly anti democracy stance in its support for same /denying these people Constitutional/ Declaration rights
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Just out of curiosity ; Could the events of the 50's ,Bleeding Kansas,the border conflicts in Kansas and Nebraska , John Brown,the formation of the Republican party with its anti slavery platform /Fremontand the threats of the South's secession,the fact that neither side was willing to compromise due to the fact there was nothing to compromise over and the chief political spokesmen were dead ,even in 1860 no side was really willing to listen to the other.Then no one really believed ,even Lincoln ,that the South would carry their threat out,till the firing on Sumter.Could all this played a large part in the eventual conflict ? The main thing was there was no Clay ,no Webster ,or even John Q.Adams,and esp. there was no one in the South with the voice to persuade the leaders of the movement to halt and realize the real effects of this .Jackson being one of them ,a slave owner and from Ten.,was the last one who the South would listen to even under the threat to S,Carolina. If there had been a weaker president would the other states had followed.? The 50's would be the time that set everything into motion .With the formation of the Republican party and the acceptance of radical parties into it ,the anti slavery now had a strong base to attack the institute of slavery and then the South for its failure of doing away with it and its seemingly anti democracy stance in its support for same /denying these people Constitutional/ Declaration rights
Lots there.
Bridging the social gap would IMHO be impossible in the short run, yet Southern Honor, part of the Southern culture, demanded immediate concessions from what it viewed as an inferior party.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,941
Location
los angeles ca
The Differences between the Antebellum North and South by JAMES M. MCPHERSON
From James M. McPherson, “Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism: A New Look at an Old Question,” Civil
War History, Volume 29, #3, 1983, pp. 230—244. Copyright © 1983. Reprinted by permission of The Kent State University Press. The Differences between the Antebellum North ... - The American Story

Emphasis mine.

Why was it so bad that a war broke out just because the Yankees were politically dominant? What about that political dominance so adored the Southerners that they could not live in the same country as the Northerners. Why did the Northerners not see things the Southern way and accommodate it? Why the rage for a war of the secessionists. There was something going on other than mere slavery. There were 2 Americas and 2 sets of Americans in a single country. No wonder there was war and bloodshed.

Many antebellum Americans certainly thought that North and South had evolved separate societies with institutions, interests, values, and ideologies so incompatible, so much in deadly conflict that they could no longer live together in the same nation. Traveling through the South in the spring of 1861, London Times correspondent William Howard Russell encountered this Conflict of Civilizations" theme everywhere he went. The tone in which [Southerners] alluded to the whole of the Northern people indicated the clear conviction that trade, commerce, the pursuit of gain, manufacture, and the base mechanical arts, had so degraded the whole race” that Southerners could no longer tolerate association with them, wrote Russell. “There is a degree of something like ferocity in the Southern mind [especially] toward New England which exceeds belief.” A South Carolinian told Russell: “We are an agricultural people, pursuing our own system, and working out our own destiny, breeding up women and men with some other purpose than to make them vulgar, fanatical, cheating Yankees.” Louis Wigfall of Texas, a former US. senator, told Russell: “We are a peculiar people, Sir! . . . We are an agricultural people. . . . We have no cities—we don’t want them. . . . We want no manufactures: we desire no trading, no mechanical or manufactUring clasSes. . . ..As long as we have our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, and our cotton, we can command wealth to purchase all we want. . . . But with the Yankees we will never trade—never. Not one pound of cotton shall ever go from the South to their accursed cities.”(1)

Such opinions were not universal in the South, of course, but in the fevered atmosphere of the late 18503 they were widely shared. “Free Society!” exclaimed a Georgia newspaper. “We sicken at the name. What is it but a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, filthy operatives, small—fisted farmers, and moon—struck theorists . . . hardly fit for association with a southern gentleman’s body servant.” (2)In 1861 the Southern Literary Messenger explained to its readers: “It is not a question of slavery alone that we are called upon to decide. It is free society which we must shun or embrace.”(3) In the same year Charles Colcock Jones, Jr.———no fire—eater, for after all he had graduated from Princeton and from Harvard Law School—spoke of the development of antagonistic cultures in North and South: “In this country have arisen two races [i.e., Northerners and Southerners] which, although claiming a common parentage, have been so entirely separated by climate, by morals, by religion, and by estimates so totally opposite to all that constitutes honor, truth, and manliness, that they cannot longer exist under the same government.”

1. My Diary North and South, Volume 1 By Sir William Howard Russell P 179 Link
2. Chambers's Journal, Volume 27 By William Chambers, Robert Chambers P 9 Link
3. Southern Literary Messenger, Volumes 32-33 P 152 Link
We knew Wigfall was full of B.S.. .Cotton always was sold to the North. In the book "Bitterly divided the South's inner Civil war " David Williams thenswpress.com Williams gives accounts of Southern slave owners eagerly selling their cotton to the northern cotton brokers. The U.S. naval river patrol boats would load the cotton and transport it from Confederate controlled areas.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,634
Location
Denver, CO
Towns and cities had a better chance in the north than in the south from the beginning. The north was not burdened by insect born diseases, and the problems of clean water and sewage disposal were solved early on.
A city the size of New York/Brooklyn in 1860 was not possible in the south until germ theory, and insect control came along.
Once the disease problem is solved, the south has a darn good climate and growing season.
At the time of the Civil War, New Orleans still had an annual cholera season. The danger posed by disease was hidden by the mass forced immigration of slaves. The slave population of the new cotton states was probably not self sustaining any more than the slave population of the Caribbean or Brazil, but this was hidden by the interstate slave trade.
Even at that time, wealthy people who did not have to live in the south went to New Jersey or Long Island for the summer.
So the south's population was younger and more dispersed and there was not much to be done about it before DDT, anti-biotics and air conditioning. The south simply could not achieve the population density that the north could achieve.
In addition, water transport, on the rivers and along the coasts, was reliable in the south. The shipping season was longer, and coastal shipping took place in a climate that was warmer.
In the era of steamboats, shipping by water was more efficient than railroads and was well suited to shipping a low density durable commodity like cotton. Indigo, hemp and tobacco, rice and sugar could also be shipped by slow, but efficient means.
The railroads in the south were supplemental to water shipping.
In the north, the railroads, though costlier than water shipping, were faster and could run in most weather conditions.
Northern society got faster and more dependent on iron, telegraph communication, machinists and private multi-party corporations.
The Whig program of internal development was not necessary in the South. The rivers and steamboats took most of the bulk transport and railroads and canals were not as important.
Railroads were the key industry in the north driving the expansion of the market economy and growth of cities.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,634
Location
Denver, CO
Still good potential here. Agriculture paid better in the south, from the beginning. Growing seasons were longer, soils more rewarding.
Crops not possible in England could be grown there. In the north, city life, trade and sailing were always more important. Thus New England and the Mid-Atlantic states were more similar than the southern areas, which were more colonial. Still, as long as Virginia, Maryland and Delaware held the balance of power the two sections could work out the differences. Even slavery, in Virginia, was not the same as ancient slavery. Conditions were not good, but it wasn't ancient slavery either. If the situation would have been based on Virginia and Maryland, there would have been a greater chance for a solution.
The problems were increased when cotton fever took over in the south, and the slave population was re Africanized with involuntary immigration from Africa and Caribbean.
Involuntary immigration decreased the number of white people in the south, so a national identity could emerge. In addition southerners who did not support slavery began to cross the Ohio River or head west, so the Midwest already had a new mixed population of patriots, southerners and immigrants. The states of the Confederacy, at least to the white population, were ethnically solid. And it stayed that way well into the 20th century. The northern populations became all mixed up.
 



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