I know that stuff like the geography and the economy made it tough, but what are some more specific reasons? Or were they actually starting to industrialize as the war broke out?
Why didn't they industrialize before the war?
Other urls found in this thread:
This is literally talked about in any book about the American Civil War. and its not lacking source material, because its the most written thing in Americna history
Extremely low population density, slaves being the dominant manual workforce and lack of urban centers led to a situation where the south just did not have capacity to provide labour and capital for an upstart factory. The only top 10 city in US located in CSA was New Orleans, and it is quite far away from the core areas of Southern US - Piedmont.
That area was also the most wealthy in the USA
Probably because industrialization didn't hit a decent monetary breakpoint with slavery until decades after the war was over. Seriously. Plantations outproduced free farms on a per hectare basis until the 1890s. There was zero incentive to industrializing Southern agriculture before this point. Even then, let's assume they HAD incentive, they probably still would have kept slaves to run the equipment.
>labor or capital
The South had more capital than the North, albeit tied up in slaves, and you don't need free labor for industrialization. Ask the Soviets if you need free labor for industrialization.
too many blacks
>albeit tied up in slaves
there's the rub. slaves are illiquid
Because defeated warriors declare war first and then seek to win. Read your Sun Tzu. It's amazing how he made so many observations which are still true today. War never changes indeed.
>Ask the Soviets if you need free labor for industrialization.
Yes, but the soviets coordinated workers on a national scale, slave owners had little interest in pursuing developmental objectives like building up an industrial base until the Civil War forced them to come together to coordinate such a scheme.
It was mostly northern and northwestern (meaning the likes of Illinois and Indiana) that were wealthy. In the South Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky were wealthy states, the rest not so much.
They had some industry, it was just pennies compared to what the farms were doing.
Despite that, the CSA still did much better than many other states at the time. They had dozens of ironclads go through usage, whereas at a comparable time Italy used a single dozen, only one of which was a new (monitor based) design.
> albeit tied up in slaves,
Yeah, which means that the economy is less monetized and financial instruments are less efficient and rarer. An industrialist would have harder time securing loans, and would pay a higher premium for them, reducing the economic incentives of investment in industry.
> you don't need free labor for industrialization
How would you man the factories, when there just is not a class of widely available, cheap and centrally located working age men? Lack of cities makes finding workforce time consuming and slow, and even then, only the poor whites are the part of society that is available as potential labour. And they represent a relatively low number of people - around one third of the white population in south, which was around perhaps 1.4 to 1.5 million. Finland at this time had a larger potential pool than CSA, to illustrate this.
>hey had dozens of ironclads go through usage, whereas at a comparable time Italy used a single dozen, only one of which was a new (monitor based) design.
CSA "ironclads" were tiny coastal defense floating batteries displacing about 300 - 800 tons. Italy's ironclads displaced 3000 tons.
>slave owners had little interest in pursuing developmental objectives like building up an industrial base
And why was that? It's almost as if I answered it in the first sentence of the previous post. There was no monetary incentive for the South to industrialize. Zero. It took 30 fucking years for industrialized farms to outproduce what slave plantations produced.
>How would you man the factories, when there just is not a class of widely available, cheap and centrally located working age men
>What are slaves
Be less of a dickhead in the future
>this is what Dixiecucks actually believe
Slaves were owned by the manorial class. To use them as workforce would mean that the manorial class would also be the industrializing class, which strikes to me as an unlikely event, as the manorial class would invest in expanding its agricultural operations - more fields, and more slaves to work them - instead of buying industrial properties. After all, the South was barely populated - the population density of 4.5 per square kilometer, which is less than what Wyoming currently has. The other option would be for the soon-to-become industrialist to buy slaves, which again is impractical as it is an upfront paymont to start the process - something that the factory itself already is. That would inflate the starting price of factories and thus lead to more money spent on interests and the likes.
Because rich slaveowners in the South didn’t want to lose their wealth and status. They knew full well carpetbaggers made the better investment and would eventually fuck them out of business so they tried to pull a power play to preserve their power. Had the south won, they’d have likely industrialized very soon anyway, they just wanted to be the ones who reaped the benefits.
I don't think that the Southern states realized until the election of Lincoln that the institution of slavery was under threat. They thought that they would just roll over Kansas, that laws like the fugitive slave act and the like would undermine the concept of a free-state and that slavery would be able to expand freely into the new territories. Plantation agriculture didn't need to be sustainable because slavery was seen as something that could expand infinitely. Did your cotton production destroy the land? No need to worry about better farming techniques, just move west and bring your slaves with you. The elite of the South had absolutely no reason to believe that the institution of slavery would become outmoded by Northern guns and it could have potentially gone on until now.
>I don't think that the Southern states realized until the election of Lincoln that the institution of slavery was under threat
How much of a historylet can you be? Slavery was under threat since the 1700s and the South had been desperately fighting for its survival for over half a century when Lincoln became president.
Real life isn't a video game with a tech-tree that autistic children race through to meta game and unlock the cool broken shit.
The threat to the institution of slavery in the 1700s was removed with the invention of the cotton gin, which made cotton production profitable and increased demand for slaves. How could you not know this?
The slave trade was abolished and slavery was being banned all over the world. The entirety of early 1800s for the South was a constant political fight to keep slavery relevant. How can you not know this?
The import of slaves from Africa was discontinued. The slave population hardly dwindled as a result. Cotton was king, especially the invention of the cotton gin. Seriously, how on Earth could you understate the value of the invention of the cotton gin?
>The threat to the institution of slavery in the 1700s was removed with the invention of the cotton gin
wut. While this was a huge boon to slavery (as it was a dying institution prior) the expansion (and maintenance by proxy due to the nature of the American political system) was under considerable attack from the 1820's onward. Everyone knew it was a matter of time before free states outnumbered slave states and when that happened slavery would be banned. Compromises were made, and sometimes the fight went for the South, but the overall struggle saw the South losing considerable ground by 1860.
>Seriously, how on Earth could you understate the value of the invention of the cotton gin?
How on Earth could you ignore every significant political event after?
>the expansion (and maintenance by proxy due to the nature of the American political system) was under considerable attack from the 1820's onward
What do you think I was referring to when I said:
>They thought that they would just roll over Kansas, that laws like the fugitive slave act and the like would undermine the concept of a free-state and that slavery would be able to expand freely into the new territories.
The institution of slavery wasn't dying: it was just unsustainable without expanding.
>Everyone knew it was a matter of time
>when that happened slavery would be banned
The North still needed Southern cotton and the South held this above Northern politicians, suggesting that it cotton production would decrease significantly if slavery ended.
I'm not even the guy you were originally replying to. The whole point is that your comment was ridiculously ignorant.
>The institution of slavery wasn't dying: it was just unsustainable without expanding.
This is like saying a person isn't dying, they're just locked in a cell without food.
Here you go. It's a very basic rundown for you since you seem to be completely unaware.
not him, but the tractor was invented in 1893. if another 30 years had gone on since the civil war plantation owners may have just replaced aging slaves with tractors anyway. The cost of slaves wasn't cheap and keeping them alive wasn't easier. just like with mcdonalds and the order robots, machines could have took over. but we had to go and chimp out on each other so we'll never know.
I'm not even that guy, or the other guy, but you're just retarded
>This is like saying a person isn't dying, they're just locked in a cell without food.
No, it's more like a company expanding production in order to stay in business.
Why did they reject the Corwin amendment which would have compromised by protected slavery in states it already existed with a constitutional amendment while preventing new slave states from being made? A constitutional amendment is virtually impossible to repeal unless you have an overwhelming majority in favor of it, which would have left plenty of time for a soft landing if slavery was, in fact, on its last legs
>muh States rights
State's rights is a dog whistle. What was it that they wanted their state to be able to do, exactly?
One of the principle complaints that the south had against the North was that northern states were exercising their "states' right" to ignore the fugitive slave act. In fact in their article of Secession the state of Mississippi specifically cited the example of New York threatening to emancipate any slave that they brought into New York City market, they thought that New York State's rights were too strong.
The South loved states rights until they didn't.
>It's almost as if I answered it in the first sentence of the previous post.
obtuse cunt. Nobody is thinking "agriculture" when industrialization is mentioned.
>There was no monetary incentive for the South to industrialize.
I'm not talking about industrialized agriculture retard. I'm talking about industry making mass produced and standardized consumer goods such as textiles, machinery, industrialized transport such as locomotives and steam boats. Even for "industrialized agriculture" you need multiple factories that would congregating hundreds of workers producing machine parts for tractors and other farm implements and processing facilities. All of that is hard to coordinate in a rural society and in direct competition with a region of the country (the north) that has better educational, financial and transport infrastructure to facilitate industrial growth.
Slavery grew in magnitude, in sheer numbers and in sophistication from the late 18th century. It was expanding westward as well throughout the early 19th century. It was bringing in huge profits. It was definitely not under immediate threat.
Your post is solid. Here's a visual aid to bolster your point
The Civil war was caused by a tug-of-war between Southern Aristocrats and Northern Industrialists. The Southern aristocracy loved their precious pets so much they'd be content with turning the US into Haiti in pursuit of their profits. Northern Industrialists weren't any better but at least they weren't promoting the importation of a racially distinct underclass
>they weren't promoting the importation of a racially distinct underclass
uhhh... I'm not pro-south but the slave population was growing naturally not through immigration. Ironically, the northern industrialists DID import an immigrant underclass of irish, italians and other various central, southern and eastern europeans, but they were assimilated.
>the slave population was growing naturally
Because they weren't allowed to ship people over from Africa anymore
>Ironically, the northern industrialists DID import an immigrant underclass of irish, italians and other various central, southern and eastern europeans
Yeah but they weren't racially distinct and most of those groups married into the Northern WASP population. When physical attributes like race are associated with an class of "undesirables" so to speak it becomes nearly impossible to integrate those people into the larger fabric of society
>racially distinct underclass
>Because they weren't allowed to ship people over from Africa anymore
the slave trade had already been dwindling before that iirc
>physical attributes like race
well yes skin pigmentation is one of the most distinct physical differences noticed by men, but it's not like the different white groups weren't distinct physically. It's just more subtle.
The Atlantic slave trade officially ended in 1807, mostly due to slave abolition in Europe, but as much as a quarter of all Africans who were enslaved between 1500 and 1870 were transported illegally across the Atlantic in the years after 1807.
>the slave trade had already been dwindling before that iirc
For economic & social reasons, but had the Atlantic Slave trade been allowed to continue you'd see a lot more Blacks in the US today. That's what I mean; we Yanks were opposed to it for supposedly moralistic reasons, but I think people understood that perpetuating the growth of the slave population was not a good long-term strategy for America
>but it's not like the different white groups weren't distinct physically
Those kinds of differences are minute and overlooked when you speak the same language, have the same culture, and live in the same area. There's the ability for assimilation since people instinctively seek out/accept others who are like them. However when you import a people who are physically different the chances for assimilation drop drastically. I view illegal immigration in the same vein as slavery since the economic motivations for allowing these people to come over are nearly identical
I wouldn't call having an owner 8n charge of your breeding a natural component of human reproduction. And at the point of the Civil War it was really only German and Irish immigrants. Still, it was a good point. The North was undercutting the rights of southerners with westward expansion and immigration, and the south was dooming us all to permanent infestation and strife to satisfy their racial dominance fetish.
You assume industrialization was seen as a big deal at the time.
It wasn't. The South was quite willing and interested in preserving a society where most of the economy is agricultural.
There were no cars, computers or airplanes. I don't think there were public schools yet. The main engine of industry was railways. They were rich enough off of agriculture so there was no sense of urgency to industrialize. Warfare was still largely thought of in the Napoleonic style, with cavalry charges.
>Warfare was still largely thought of in the Napoleonic style, with cavalry charges.
This is actually a really good point. The North didn't even really appreciate their industrial advantage until later in the war. People had a very outdated idea of warfare in the beginning of the conflict. They didn't realize they were entering a new era in the history of war until the corpses had already piled up and it was way too late to go back.