Why did the South fail to industrialize as the North did prior to the civil war...

>Because blacks aren't human and therefore doesn't deserve jobs.
what about all the poor non slaveowner whites then

Why would those poor non-slaveowner whites want blacks to have their jobs?

what?

These anons know their shit:

As Historian, I can vouch for these explanations.

To over simplify this complicated topic, I'll refer to another example:

China's High-Level Equilibrium Trap.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_equilibrium_trap

Raw cotton was sold to other countries, or shipped North into the Northern states. This was fine, and places like Mississippi and Lousiana used to be among the richest states in the Union.

>This was fine
it really wasn't
like all extraction economies (i.e. caribbean colonies) it had a very rich owner class and a dirt poor working class with no purchasing power
pure extraction economies are not healthy for a state

>WE WUZ RICH N SHIET

And why, prythee, would the owners do anything to change that situation? They hold the reins of power, remember?

>And why, prythee, would the owners do anything to change that situation?
where did i say they would

Well the moot question is why didn't the south industrialise.

As others have pointed out, slave agriculture made the most sense in the antebellum south.

Many parts of the northeast were cold enough and had such rocky soil that agriculture was a very minor part of the economy. Massachusetts comes to mind.

The North was also into into farming as well just not as much as the south. The north produced the majority of the countries food by 1861.

Holy fuck. They weren't fucking around about the land of cotton.

The Democrats could not stop using their cheap imported brown labor.

Because southerners are lazy and stupid

Plantations had a higher return on investment than railways in the South but this wasn't the case in the North, so in the North most of the investment went towards building railroads.

underrated

Slavery reduced the incentive to modernize. A man who owns a bunch of slaves doesn't have the sort of incentive to constantly innovate the way that a factory owner employing paid labor does.

Extractive institutions - the planter class actively worked to discourage industrialization (e.g. Mississippi) which inevitably led to them lagging behind the North.

It's a lot easier to modernize various workshops than slave plantations. It would have been better to modernize, and they knew it, but everything they'd invested in the slave economy would have been wasted if they industrialized and made their slave labor obsolete. Basically, sunk cost fallacy with a side of "what the fuck are we supposed to do with all these negroes if we don't need slaves any more?

the y*nkee subhumans used tariffs such as the tariff of abomination to ban industry in the south. This was because y*nkees knew that southerners were more honorable, brave and courageous, meaning that they couldn't beat the south in a fair fight

Water. they had more rivers and the great lakes.

The North had a lot of canals built to facilitate interstate and international trade.

Also population density was greater in the north which made investment in industry more worthwhile.

Also the water from rivers allowed steam engines to be powered.
All of these industries combined meant that the North had industries and so an advantage during the Civil War.

For the South the bulk of the population was rural with scattered cities which made industry less worthwhile.

The Mississippi river area you think should had a lot of industry because water but again low population = no industry. Especially since the North already had industries to invest in.

>Water. they had more rivers and the great lakes.
This is the explanation I've heard most often

Found a density map dating to decades before the civil war.

The Northeast was dense even a decade after the revolution.

Slave labor. Why bother?

It had to be obvious that that wasn't a long term solution. By the Civil War slavery had completely fallen out of popularity on an international scale, and the Southern Gentry were a bunch of francophiles anyway.

So pretty much they were setting themselves up for failure on the long run? Crazy to think that they must've been so sure that slavery would always be around that they would invest everything they had into a system that was built around it.

They must've seen it coming surely though

>The south didn't want to industrialize meme

Basically nothing was in there favor (climate, geography, politics). Even after slavery ended the south wasn't able to industrialize and has only really caught up to the north recently during our current post industrial economy.

>Essentially, he claims that the Chinese pre-industrial economy had reached an equilibrium point where supply and demand were well-balanced.
This seems suspect to me. When has demand ever been truly satisfied? Why didn't the Chinese mercantile class start hankering for more? The switch over to Confucianism seems more reliable to me, and even that doesn't seem like it could completely hold back human nature.

I don't normally like black girls, but confusing juxtaposition gets my dick hard like nothing else

>I don't normally like black girls

Absolutely nothing. It's a shame, too, since it's so much easier to find black fatties

I can't explain the rest of the south, but Texas was barely a sovereign state at the time.

Houston was basically a swamp with a tiny population for a long time. Most places were small towns with people spread to the four winds, mainly farmers and ranchers that would come to town maybe once a week to sell their crop or pass through a lot of places on a cattle drive. Railroads were very few and far inbetween, drastically expensive and still in their infancy. Anything past the Ficher-Miller land grant was wildman territory full of Commanches that would skin you alive, bury you up to your neck near an ant mound and put honey on your head, and/or enslave your women/children and sell them off as slaves. The only place that had a semi-dense population I know of was Austin (Which was still tiny) and a couple of the German pioneer towns which were basically disconnected from the Anglos completely due to language barriers and distrust (Also supporting the union during the civil war didn't help any).

I'm guessing the biggest factor however is population density. The north has the conditions together for industrialization with high density cities providing a large glut of cheap labor, while the south allowed for citizens to remain largely self-sufficient farming or being a craftsman.

What the fuck capcha?

>tfw lost my virginity to an impossibly thicc black chick

Is still get a raging hard on thinking of that fat ass and those big ol' nips

This might be a tough pill to swallow for some people, but the white Southerners are basically niggers. It's criminally understated what a catastrophic shithole the antebellum South was.

what's the source on that image

>why not build textile mills and railroads to ship it?
because the South is naturally navigable through its rivers, that's the main reason.

The North has very few natural ways to get good from Albany to New York City, so roads and eventually railroads were built to speed up transporation.

In the South, the Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, and Chattahoochee Rivers are navigable by boat/steamboat, and lead directly to the port city for shipping (Mobile, New Orleans, Savannah, etc), developing railroad wasn't seen as a necessity in the South as trade routes were already there to begin with, to the point where simply transporting raw materials to the north for manufacturing was far cheaper than building new manufacturies in Alabama/Tennessee, etc.

The South was already filthy rich off just their plantation economy alone, which made industrializing quite a risky adventure compared to the North.

t.Southerner

Any land bought to create the railroads would have to be purchased from wealthy landowners who would most likely not sell it and would definitely not want a railroad going straight through their fields where slaves could escape.
Having a railroad system would require coal. the nearest coal deposits are centered in the Appalachians which most of the north was situated right on top of. for them this would have been completely out of the state.
Factories needed to compete with most of the industrial would need to have thousands of workers and was extremely dangerous. There wasnt too many cities that had such a large pool of manual laborers. If someone lost an arm or a leg it would be hard to keep them employed.

Grady McWhiney: Cracker Culture

People have a tendency to pick the short-term over the long term, don't realize this? This is why shitty and harmful concepts keeping popping up in civilizations. Lessons of the past are always forgotten when its convenient.

Serfs and slaves keep worker productivity low because they keep the cost of labor low, thus there is no real incentive to increase worker's productivity through innovation or invention. Why bother when you can just hire more slaves? When you're paying a man to work, there is great incentive to increasing the value of that work to further your firm. When you're just whipping slaves, there's little.

Guys, everything you say about the south can easily be applied to Brazil, if the south ceded it would be Brazil lite, and it's easy to predict how and why everything happened and would've happened by drawing that comparison.

the south would've abolished slavery a few decades after the civil war and it would've industrialized eventually and would've been a wealthy successful state, especially with all the texas oil

And interestingly, the south would've had a much larger black population and all the ghettoes would be in the south and not in New York and Chicago

Mainly because their economy was so large and stable that small things barely registered in pre-internet age. Meanwhile all the western economies were tiny and any regional changes would mean country wide change (there was only handful of cities per country)

This is true. Generations of income gap, which leads to resource gap, education gap, livelihood gap, opportunity gap, all leads towards a discrepencies between the North/South, the stark difference is between the Northern cities and the Southern rural

hey look, a cletus making up history to excuse the inferiority of his society, again

humidity
heat
disease
competition from the north
competition for labor from other sources of income
lower population density
higher corruption

>North: "we're the future!"
>South: "There can be no future for the south without slaves!"
>N: "oh yeah? Lets put it to the test"
>"S: "you cant win we're all good shots!"
>N: "then ill kill the guys giving you bullets"
>S: "but we have a right to our property!"
>N: "you gave up your rights as a citizen when you rebelled, with 2/3rds of states or congress you could have left legally, but you didnt do the legal thing"
>S: "but muh freedom!"
>: "to take another's freedom? Then I suppose Im free to take yours"

and thats the civil war in a nutshell.