Why "the South" did not get a railroad to the Pacific


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
363
Location
retired traveling
Some had come to the conclusion that separating from the North was the only way they could develop their manufactures, banking and transportation infrastructure.
The slave states paid considerable attention to the development of a conservative, stable banking system, which could guarantee the movement of staple crops and the extension of credit to the planters. Southern banks were primarily designed to lend the planters money for outlays that were economically feasible and socially acceptable in a slave society: the movement of crops, the purchase of land and slaves, and little else (Genovese 21).
If the planters were losing their economic and political cold war with the Northern capitalism, the failure of the South to develop sufficient industry provided the most striking immediate cause.
http://cghs.dadeschools.net/slavery/white_south/intro_economy.htm
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
363
Location
retired traveling
Were you specifically discussing Lincoln in 1820, perhaps I was thrown off course by: “The slave states are largely responsible for neither section getting one before 1861.”
i believe that you said the south was threatened by lincoln and the republican party.
my point is that it was a long time coming and the rest of the world was abolishing slavery during this time. the south spent this time defending this "peculiar institution" as "the southern way of life" long before lincoln arrived on the scene.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,625
Location
Laurinburg NC
i believe that you said the south was threatened by lincoln and the republican party.
my point is that it was a long time coming and the rest of the world was abolishing slavery during this time. the south spent this time defending this "peculiar institution" as "the southern way of life" long before lincoln arrived on the scene.
I pretty sure I have never here or anywhere else implied that it wasn't "a long time coming."
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
363
Location
retired traveling
I pretty sure I have never here or anywhere else implied that it wasn't "a long time coming."
then your statement that the south felt threatened only by lincoln and the republican party is false. how about their primary customers, england and france ? or germany, Denmark , Holland, Portugal , spain, and mexico among others.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
363
Location
retired traveling
anyway i keep getting drawn off topic.
the point is that the south was tied to their primary interest of slave produced cotton. sectional and intra-sectional bickering and obstruction, and a lack of co-operation and co-ordination is the main reason the south did not get a TRR.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,625
Location
Laurinburg NC
then your statement that the south felt threatened only by lincoln and the republican party is false. how about their primary customers, england and france ? or germany, Denmark , Holland, Portugal , spain, and mexico among others.
The South felt threatened by Lincoln and the Republican Party in 1860, not 1820 when Lincoln was still a child and the radical Republican Party, created in the 1850s, didn't exist. The South didn't feel threatened either in 1820 or 180 by England, France, Germany, Denmark, Holland, Portugal, pain, or Mexico.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
363
Location
retired traveling
The South felt threatened by Lincoln and the Republican Party in 1860, not 1820 when Lincoln was still a child and the radical Republican Party, created in the 1850s, didn't exist. The South didn't feel threatened either in 1820 or 180 by England, France, Germany, Denmark, Holland, Portugal, Spain, or Mexico.
You have kindled a fire which all the waters of the ocean cannot put out, which seas of blood can only extinguish.
— Representative Thomas W. Cobb of Georgia 1819


By 1807 the abolitionist groups had a very sizeable faction of like-minded members in the British Parliament. At their height they controlled 35 to 40 seats. Known as the "Saints," the alliance was led by the best known of the anti-slave trade campaigners, William Wilberforce, who had taken on the cause of abolition in 1787 after having read the evidence that Thomas Clarkson had amassed against the trade.
During the Commons debates on outlawing slavery throughout the British dominions Dickens, who prided himself in the 1830s on his radical views, acquired an acute awareness of the brutality of the slave trade and of the dire conditions under which slavers transported Africans to the Americas. The debates culminated in the passage of the
Abolition of Slavery Act in 1833 as its chief proponent, William Wilberforce, lay dying. — Philip V. Allingham, Professor Emeritus, Lakehead University


Dickens expressed the fervent hope that the United States would live up to the high ideals of the Declaration of Independence by finally enacting Negro emancipation:
We believe that earnest and dispassionate inquiry among men experienced in all the details of the question, would lead eventually to a performance by America of the moral duty of emancipation in a way that might wipe out every reproach for the past treatment of the negroes, and reflect eternal honour on the stars and stripes. [Household Words, 18 September 1852, page 5]— Charles Dickens
This culminated in :
Mill-workers-001.jpg
Put in context i think the south felt their markets threatened.
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,625
Location
Laurinburg NC
You have kindled a fire which all the waters of the ocean cannot put out, which seas of blood can only extinguish.
— Representative Thomas W. Cobb of Georgia 1819


By 1807 the abolitionist groups had a very sizeable faction of like-minded members in the British Parliament. At their height they controlled 35 to 40 seats. Known as the "Saints," the alliance was led by the best known of the anti-slave trade campaigners, William Wilberforce, who had taken on the cause of abolition in 1787 after having read the evidence that Thomas Clarkson had amassed against the trade.
During the Commons debates on outlawing slavery throughout the British dominions Dickens, who prided himself in the 1830s on his radical views, acquired an acute awareness of the brutality of the slave trade and of the dire conditions under which slavers transported Africans to the Americas. The debates culminated in the passage of the
Abolition of Slavery Act in 1833 as its chief proponent, William Wilberforce, lay dying. — Philip V. Allingham, Professor Emeritus, Lakehead University


Dickens expressed the fervent hope that the United States would live up to the high ideals of the Declaration of Independence by finally enacting Negro emancipation:
We believe that earnest and dispassionate inquiry among men experienced in all the details of the question, would lead eventually to a performance by America of the moral duty of emancipation in a way that might wipe out every reproach for the past treatment of the negroes, and reflect eternal honour on the stars and stripes. [Household Words, 18 September 1852, page 5]— Charles Dickens
This culminated in :
Put in context i think the south felt their markets threatened.
I'm not sure of where you are going here, but I would agree the Southern Colonies had no business with such a union in the first place. My point, however, was that by1860 most of the Southern States had had enough – the incoming Lincoln regime was the final straw.

"I take the facts of the American quarrel to stand thus. Slavery has, in reality, nothing on earth to do with it, in any kind of association with any generous or chivalrous sentiment on the part of the North. But the North having gradually got to itself the making of the laws and the settlement of the tariffs, and having taxed South most abominably for its own advantage, began to see, as the country grew, that unless it advocated the laying down of a geographical line beyond which slavery should not extend, the South would necessarily to recover its old political power, and be able to help itself a little in the adjustment of the commercial affairs.

Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens."

As to Secession being Rebellion, it is distinctly provable by State papers that Washington, considered it no such thing – that Massachusetts, now loudest against it, has itself asserted its right to secede, again and again – and that years ago, when the two Carolinas began to train their militia expressly for Secession, commissioners sent to treat with them and to represent the disastrous policy of such secession, never hinted it would be rebellion."

Charles Dickens letter to the WW Cerjet 16 March 1862









 
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
363
Location
retired traveling
My point, however, was that by1860 most of the Southern States had had enough – the incoming Lincoln regime was the final straw.
You implied that Lincoln and the Republican Party was the threat to the south.
Hence my remark, “where was Lincoln in 1820 ?”
My point is that it was a long time coming as evidenced by the Missouri compromise, and that the south stood almost alone in the world as an advocate of slavery. Lincoln was a kid and the Republican Party did not exist. This anti-slavery movement threatened southern export markets . The contention did not form in a 1860 vacuum .
If you misunderstood my meaning i will try to be more remedial in the future.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,540
This is all getting pretty far away from the TRR, but it is worth noting that Charles Dickens had a major grudge against Americans: he was the biggest-selling author in the world and a great many American publishers were printing and selling his work without paying him royalties. In particular, he seems to have been very angry with a bunch of publishers in Baltimore, but I think there were quite a few in places like New York, Boston and Philadelphia. Any criticisms of Americans by Dickens should be taken with a good-sized dose of salt.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,625
Location
Laurinburg NC
You implied that Lincoln and the Republican Party was the threat to the south.
Hence my remark, “where was Lincoln in 1820 ?”
My point is that it was a long time coming as evidenced by the Missouri compromise, and that the south stood almost alone in the world as an advocate of slavery. Lincoln was a kid and the Republican Party did not exist. This anti-slavery movement threatened southern export markets . The contention did not form in a 1860 vacuum .
If you misunderstood my meaning i will try to be more remedial in the future.
I implied that Lincoln was the threat in 1860 that drove seven Southern States to secession. I have never said anything that should have led you to infer it was my view all was well between the regions going back to at least 1820.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,540
I implied that Lincoln was the threat in 1860 that drove seven Southern States to secession. I have never said anything that should have led you to infer it was my view all was well between the regions going back to at least 1820.
Generally, the Fire-Eaters and secessionists in "the South" had decided back in 1858 that the election of any "Black Republican" President would be enough of a catalyst to spark secession (there were public speeches laying this argument out). They simply wanted to use the Election as an immediate cause to split the country and they deliberately fanned the flames to get what they wanted.

Lincoln was not regarded as a serious candidate until 1860; in December of 1859 Lincoln himself was planning on supporting Edward Bates for the nomination and was actually aiming at the 1864 Senate race in Illinois.

The 1860 Election was an engineered crisis. Saying "Lincoln" is inaccurate. The extremists in "the South" literally did not care who would run for the Republicans because, to them, any "Black Republican" President would do. Lincoln himself was a fairly moderate man on the slavery issue and not much of a threat to "the South".
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,190

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,625
Location
Laurinburg NC
Generally, the Fire-Eaters and secessionists in "the South" had decided back in 1858 that the election of any "Black Republican" President would be enough of a catalyst to spark secession (there were public speeches laying this argument out). They simply wanted to use the Election as an immediate cause to split the country and they deliberately fanned the flames to get what they wanted.

Lincoln was not regarded as a serious candidate until 1860; in December of 1859 Lincoln himself was planning on supporting Edward Bates for the nomination and was actually aiming at the 1864 Senate race in Illinois.

The 1860 Election was an engineered crisis. Saying "Lincoln" is inaccurate. The extremists in "the South" literally did not care who would run for the Republicans because, to them, any "Black Republican" President would do. Lincoln himself was a fairly moderate man on the slavery issue and not much of a threat to "the South".


I agree.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
363
Location
retired traveling
Any criticisms of Americans by Dickens should be taken with a good-sized dose of salt.
I barely mentioned dickens and his prejudice and comment is really unimportant to my point. those in government and those who depended on southern cotton make my point.
wilberforce, and clarkson (Clarkson organizes the collection of more than 300,000 signatures of people refusing to take slave plantation sugar in their tea—the blood of slaves said to be in each spoonful ) , pitt and sharp and the Abolition Committee .
then during the blockade the citizens of manchester boycott southern cotton, their livelyhood. that is a long time for anti-slavery feeling in england and i am sure it worried and angered southerners for being judged outside of the US.
this is off topic and we got here with a reply to my comment...
"The TRR did not prevent the south from trading directly with Europe or China and willingly accepted northern and European middlemen and industry thus sacrificing their economic independence .
Slavery was their economic engine and organized their culture and social order and was the driver of southern expansion.
The south was defensive and felt threatened in the face of judgement by the contemporary world."
in this i was saying that the south willingly "gave up" their economic independence.
the reply was ...
by @CSA Today -- The South wasn't threatened by the world it was threatened by the incoming Lincoln regime and the regionally partisan Republican Party.
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,175
I think the only practical method of sponsoring the Transcontinental RR routes would have been by similar land-grants (this is how the Union Pacific-Central Pacific route was financed). There was a major problem with Southern opposition to such financing in the early 1850s -- but obviously they had been willing to do it to build the Mobile & Ohio. I think this opposition is an "It all depends on whose ox is being gored" situation: if "the South" got a route, they'd have come around to accepting the deal.
Sirs, I've always been fascinated with the use of Land Grants. Recruiters were sent to Europe with literature and sales pitches of the wealth and bounty of the cheap available land and promises of each landholder a king. Some of these grants are still held by the descendant railroad corporations. The 'domestication' of these land grant plots not only increased the economic input to the 'grantee' rail lines but also increased the value of the surrounding and near-by acreage. The mid-country and northern routes at least provided some hope to prospective homesteaders as farm land, (up to the eastern side of the Rockies). What possible incentive could the rail companies provide to attract potential settlers to any southern route through west Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and extreme southern California? The hydrocarbon bonanza was as yet unknown. Mining likewise. Irrigation infrastructure for current crops, (like cotton!), was a long way off. Ranching? Land Grants immediate worth were not only to sell to homesteaders but for loans and increased shareholder value. At the time frame we are reviewing, how much fiscal benefit would have been derived from land grants across New Mexico as opposed to say Nebraska or Minnesota?
3204

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top