[Smilin' Dave]

No, this is propaganda. The South seceded because it wanted no part of the Republican Party's neo-mercantilist program, especially the high tariff rates, which would've severely injured the southern economy. In fact, Congress passed an amendment to the Constitution (it was never ratified by the states) on March 2, 1861 (this was after the southern delegation had left Congress) which would've upheld slavery forever--obviously an olive branch to the South.

Thanks, I actually did a subject on the Civil War and despite my question of "if it's not about slavery, what was it about", I never did get a real answer.

1861, actually. The "Tsar-Liberator" Alexander II ended it unilaterally (although a Russian form of share-cropping developed in its place...).

Didn't they have to pay for their freedom or something along those lines even after 1861 (maybe it was buying the land that they received in the deal)?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The South fired the first shot. If bombing Fort Sumter to smithereens wasn't aggression... then I don't know what aggression is. I am also quite proud of the fact that we bombed the Yankees into submission and that my fellow Louisianian Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard was their commander on that day.

Also... many in the NOrth DID fight in the Civil War to end slavery. See the writings of Joshua "Abolitionist" Chamberlain. The South seceded because it was about to not get its way in Congress no more. Since the Revolution the South had maintained authority over the Northern states or at least had balance, but with more free Western states coming on board the South would be in the minority and the institution of slavery would be in danger of being eliminated. So, the South fought and lost, and slaves were freed in the process.

[Tharos]

South's economy was largely based on slaves. North tried to convince them to use immigrants, they didn't want to, though it'd ruin their economy. Yadda yadda yadda and there was a Civil War. And then the North won. And then blacks were free to roam the streets (and get beat up by the KKK...oh joy)

[Red_Army]

And then blacks were free to roam the streets (and get beat up by the KKK...oh joy)

Was that racism or sarcasm?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Didn't they have to pay for their freedom or something along those lines even after 1861 (maybe it was buying the land that they received in the deal)?

They were no longer bound to the land. However, they owned no land, nor did they have any savings with which to buy land. Basically, they became sharecroppers. Liberation should've been coupled with land-reform.

[MB.]

Also... many in the NOrth DID fight in the Civil War to end slavery.

Many others fought for no other reason then they wanted to see combat. Many others fought becuase they wanted the money. Many others didn't want to fight becuase they were drafted and didn't give two shits about the blacks. Many others didn't want to fight becuase they knew that freeing the blacks would mean more blacks in the north and thus reduced job opertunities for whites.

Just becuase a few took this positition from a moral basis (and then, very few were honestly trully moral objective about it- most would rather send the blacks back to Africa- as would Lincoln as Daov pointed out- then actaully "free" them), does not mean this was a legitimate motivation for those fighting, nor a reason for the war to begin in the first place.

Daov: you're really insisting on painting the Union as a trade federation rather then a common "state". We know that Lincoln and the new Republican-whigs were supportive of the state concept as opposed to the federation concept- and they won the election after all. Thus, are you sure moral values played as little role as you suggest? Ie, that economic reasons were not that utterly prevelent (though of course hugely important)?

[Captain Hat]

Here's my two cents on Lincoln, Slavery, and the South.

Lincoln, for much of his political life had stressed, as is now well known, "that a house divided against itself cannot stand, I do not expect the house to fall, but I do not expect it to remain divided. This nation cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free."

While this was appealing to his central Illinois constituency, it did not appeal to the nation as a whole. During his campaign for president in 1860, Lincoln made it clear that he did not wish to see the abolishment of slavery, but merely to keep it from spreading to the terriotries, and thusly to any new states formed from those territories.

From the establishment of the nation through 1860, the south had witnessed its political influence in Washington wane as well as its economic influence. The north had been swamped with immigrants from Northern Europe and was experiencing the economic boom of the Industrial Revolution. The North grew, while the South stagnated. The result was that the north had a growing distaste for slavery. (note: distaste, rather than hatred) as well as a growing unification, increasing the role and prestige of the Federal Government among the Northern States.

Meanwhile, while the south stagnated, few Southerners attempted to keep up with the times, only New Orleans, Maryland, and Delaware began to join the Industrial Revolution. Rather, most southern states and politicians clung vehemenently to the old political traditions and symbols of the South, most notably States' Rights and Slavery. Attempting to hold on to the influence that they had once weilded during the nation's early years the South fought against what it percieved as violations of its rights and States' Rights. This included opposition to the National Bank, Tariffs, and promotion of slavery in the territories.

Believing free labor and free enterprise the key to economic success, the North naturally favored excluding slavery from the territories. The South on the other hand, believe slavery in the territories to be the key to the preservation of its rights. The result of these conflicts were heated arguments in Congress, saber rattling on the part of the South, as well as Southern threats to secede. Fortunately, each time these issues rose, compromise had been struck; in 1820, 1835 (Nullification Controversy), and 1850.

In 1860, Kansas was applying for statehood, and the issue of slavery in new states had risen its ugly head yet again. Lincoln pledged that slavery would remain inviolate as long as the South remained in the Union, and has been noted above, Congress, as well as a national constitutional convention attempted to write a "Compromise of 1860." But it was not to be, as by 1860, both sides were sick of the other, and Americans failed at what up to that time they had been famous for - compromise.

When the war began, Lincoln claimed that it was a war to preserve the Union from destruction by a militant minority. As the war dragged on, it became more and more apparent that the South would not give in, that it was clinging to the last fibers of what had been, and that they would not come back in unless given everything (their restored influence, and slavery) they wanted. To solidify the Union war effort, and to permanently dissuade Britain and France from joining in, and to cripple the Confederate War effort, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

While not freeing a single slave, and in fact, igniting a swirld of controversy in the North, and anger in the South, the Proclamation put forth a more solid war goal that became more solid as the war progressed. The point of the Proclamation was driven home when the first black troops were enlisted. From that point forward, 1863, slavery in the United States was dead, if not official. By 1864, General Sherman commented, that "slavery in the south is dead....and there is nothing they can do to bring it back."

Naively hoping that former slaves would return to Africa, US black leaders brought Lincoln back to reality. Lincoln, during the final two years of the war, began to formulate plans for not only bringing the South back into the Union as painlessly as possible, but also to admit Blacks as citizens as painlessly as possible. Unfortunately, Lincoln's slow, gradual reconstruction plans were cut short, as we all know, in 1865.

Lincoln was a man of his times when it came to slavery, in that he felt in morally wrong, but that the government could do little about it aside from forbidding it in the territories. In helping to free them, as stated before, Lincoln got the ball rolling toward ultimate equality for Blacks in the United States.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Daov: you're really insisting on painting the Union as a trade federation rather then a common "state". We know that Lincoln and the new Republican-whigs were supportive of the state concept as opposed to the federation concept- and they won the election after all. Thus, are you sure moral values played as little role as you suggest? Ie, that economic reasons were not that utterly prevelent (though of course hugely important)?

In antebellum America, the Union was a federation, simple as that. The fact that country expressed itself as, "The United States are" as opposed to "The United States is" makes that understandable enough. Never forget that Robert E. Lee, a man who owned no slaves and believed that slavery should be abolished, turned down the command of the entire Union Army because he could not bear to make war on his native Virginia.

As far as I'm concerned, moral values played very little role in the Civil War. The general attitude toward slavery in the north in the antebellum period was to prevent its extension into new territories, primarily because, as you stated, northerners did not wish to compete with slave labor. Or, in many cases, any blacks--Illinois explicitly banned blacks from the state in its 1848 constitution. Blacks were denied US citizenship and had no Constitutional rights to due process. There was severe sectional rivalry, of which the ultimate cause was economic tension.

The North had always felt protectionism to be in its interest, and the South had always felt free trade to be in its advantage. It certainly did not help that when either side managed to capture control of Congress, tariff rates were radically moved in the favored direction. Since 1841, free traders had largely controlled Congress, so the North grew increasingly hostile to the South throughout the period (despite incredible industrial expansion). Slavery itself was a proximate cause of hostility, especially with regards to the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision. The North did not despise these for moral reasons. Rather, I believe the North hated these because it represented the encroachment of southern political power to northern soil.

When the Republican Congress was inaugurated in 1859, the basic tariff rate was quickly doubled to 30%. A weak President Buchanan did not have the courage to veto this, and thus the disintegration of the Union began. Abraham Lincoln was reviled throughout the South, and not because of any allegedly anti-slavery views. As you have established, Lincoln made it clear that he did not wish abolish slavery. What he did make clear, on the other hand, at the Republican National Convention, was that, "No man who stands before you today is more devoted to protection than I." The reason he captured the Republican nomination is because of this, which convinced the Pennsylvania and New York delegations--the two largest--to cast their ballots for him. Lincoln was then elected with only 40% of the popular vote (no President would again be elected with such a small sum of the popular vote until 1992). By the eve of the Civil War, Lincoln and the Republicans had pushed the basic tariff rate to 45%. By war's end, it would reach 54%, and would not again fall until 1894.

Meanwhile, while the south stagnated, few Southerners attempted to keep up with the times, only New Orleans, Maryland, and Delaware began to join the Industrial Revolution. Rather, most southern states and politicians clung vehemenently to the old political traditions and symbols of the South, most notably States' Rights and Slavery. Attempting to hold on to the influence that they had once weilded during the nation's early years the South fought against what it percieved as violations of its rights and States' Rights. This included opposition to the National Bank, Tariffs, and promotion of slavery in the territories.

It is a myth that the South stagnated. While the South did not industrialized, its communications and transportation did improve greatly. People often point out that railroad and telegraph systems were more developed in the north, but this is not exactly true. People forget that the North had nearly three times as many people as the South. Per capita mileage of railroads and telegraph lines were similar in North and South. The South did not develop an industrial economy because it was not cost effective. Huge amounts of capital had been sunk into human property. So much, in fact, that the value of slaves was greater than that of all railroads and banks combined. Southern agricultural exports were in high demand in western Europe and in the North. Southern financial services business began to explode in the 1830s, and the South had some of the world's most sophisticated capital markets. Furthermore, the South was extremely thrifty, as taken alone, the South would've been a creditor nation, which the US as a whole was not. Per capita incomes (by free people, obviously) were similar in the North and South. By the end of the Civil War, however, due the ruinous effects of hyperinflation, Souther incomes were 20% of their northern neighbors, a position it would remain in until the dawn of the 20th century.

Believing free labour and free enterprise the key to economic success, the North naturally favored excluding slavery from the territories.

The Republican Party which epitomized northern interests believed in a neo-mercantilist program, which can hardly be considered free enterprise.

[Captain Hat]

To be sure the railroad and telegraph systems in the South developed greatly but the quality of those systems in the South was far below that of the North. Southern railroads were a chaos of varying gauges, rails, and conections. As it was, it took many months for the Confederate Government to move from Montgomery to Richmond. Davis himself complained of having to switch trains because of differing rail guages and because some railways simply didn't link up the way they were supposed to. This had an immensly adverse effect later in the war.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but the agricultural boom that would have made the Confederacy a creditor, became a boon. The millions of bales of cotton began to pile up in British and French mills, thereby avoiding the "cotton drought" that the South hoped would bring Britian and France into the war. But when the south severed itself from the US, and when the blockade severed the south from the world, Britain and France searched for, and found, cheaper sources of cotton in Egypt and India.

The Republican Party which epitomized northern interests believed in a neo-mercantilist program, which can hardly be considered free enterprise.

I've never heard the term "neo-mercantilist" used before. Can you send me a link, or recomend a book or something?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

To be sure the railroad and telegraph systems in the South developed greatly but the quality of those systems in the South was far below that of the North. Southern railroads were a chaos of varying gauges, rails, and conections. As it was, it took many months for the Confederate Government to move from Montgomery to Richmond. Davis himself complained of having to switch trains because of differing rail guages and because some railways simply didn't link up the way they were supposed to. This had an immensly adverse effect later in the war.

True enough, and this was a point I had forgotten. I wish I knew the reason for this, but I can only speculate that it had to do with the generally lower traffic and, especially, weight volumes on southern rails. This provided a disincentive, I would imagine, to invest in infrastructure improvement and standardization. Northern rails also varied in guages, but not as much as far as I'm aware. The major railroad companies voluntarily standardized a guage in 1871, I believe.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but the agricultural boom that would have made the Confederacy a creditor, became a boon. The millions of bales of cotton began to pile up in British and French mills, thereby avoiding the "cotton drought" that the South hoped would bring Britian and France into the war. But when the south severed itself from the US, and when the blockade severed the south from the world, Britain and France searched for, and found, cheaper sources of cotton in Egypt and India.

The huge amounts of sunk capital in the South provided a tremendous resource pool from which to draw against (or sell), and the high rate of savings in the South meant that funds were readily available. A collapse of the agro-export economy likely would've resulted in southern financiers and capitalists investing in manufacturing, with the result that the South would've industrialized right along with the North. Instead, the Civil War destroyed the Southern economy. Specie was readily traded for paper money and Confederate warbonds in a patriotic gesture, the former destroyed by hyperinflation, the latter destroyed by default following the loss. Capital in the South was largely destroyed by the Union invasion, and restitution was not forthcoming. During Reconstruction, burdensome taxation (especially on property) and arbitrary regulation prevented any economic rebuilding efforts. Republican policy led to the National Banking System, which as a matter of policy informally discriminated against the South. Funds from the national government were not forthcoming, as subsidies were earmarked for big business, which were concentrated in the North. Lastly, oppressive tariff rates prevented any resurrection of the agro-export model. Thanks to the Civil War, the South was reduced from one of the world's most affluent societies to a decidedly second-rate one, and its wealth would not converge with the North until the 1970s.

I've never heard the term "neo-mercantilist" used before. Can you send me a link, or recomend a book or something?

Neo-mercantilist does not mean anything in and of itself, as neoliberal or neoconservative do. Feel free to replace neo-mercantilist with mercantilist. I use neo-mercantilist to illustrate that the Republican Party resurrected mercantilism, which had hitherto been dormant (despite the incessant braying of the Whig Party). The chief tenets of this neo-mercantilist program were the following.

• Protection for domestic industry (enacted via the Morril tariff in 1860, and raised to 54% by 1865)
• Recreation of the Bank of the United States with an expansionary monetary policy to favor industrial interests (enacted in emasculated form via the National Banking System)
• Subsidized and regulated (for the benefit of big business) infrastructure development (enacted via the ICC, abuse of eminent domain laws, Transcontinental railroads, and periodic land grants)
• Expansion of agriculture westward to provide more business for railroad companies and banks (enacted via the Homestead Act and the new Department of Agriculture)
• Income tax to fund development and to prevent entrepreneurs from competed with established interests (enacted, ruled unconstitutional in 1879)

The result of this program was an autarkic, wild boom-bust economy that saw the rapid growth of corporations. The economy was largely left very free, outside of railroads, which greatly explains railroad consolidation, the frequent overexpansion and subsequent contraction of railroad development, and the Populist reaction to large railroad oligopolies in the 1890s (consecrated most famously in Texas with the Texas Railroad Agency, which later assumed an OPEC-like role of regulating oil output based upon proven reserves). The severe industrial depression of the 1890s (the worst in the nation's history until the Great Depression) was the result of rapid monetary expansion. The inevitable bust that followed required severe contractionary action to rein in the money supply to meet available gold reserves, and was one of the greatest feats of political courage in American history. Unfortunately, Grover Cleveland never gets credit for his extraordinary character and honor in this crisis. In the 1880s, in a move to bolster the earnings of the steel industry and to project American power externally for the first time since the 1850s, the all-steel navy was built (financed by tariff surpluses created by a booming economy). Despite the radical departure from American tradition this represented, the American economy remained the freest in the world (even in the railroad industry, only Britain, Denmark and Belgium had less regulation), and had the lowest taxes to boot.

There are a number of books on the subject of the extraordinary postbellum economic expansion, but most of them miss the point. If you wish to zero in on the mercantilist program of the Republican Party, especially of the antebellum period, your choices are somewhat more limited. Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation, coauthored by Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund, is an excellent economic history of the Civil War. It explains well the Republican economic program, along with the South's alarm upon its enaction. This is what I'd most recommend. Another book which might be helpful is Tom Dilorenzo's The Real Lincoln. I should caution you that while extremely well-researched and entirely factual, its sharp bias is offputting.

[Tharos]

Was that racism or sarcasm?

That was sarcasm

[Captain Hat]

I believe where I was trying to get at by saying "Southern economic stagnation" is that they were not as far along as the North, and Dao, as you have put, did not consider major industrialization necessary or cost effective.

True enough, and this was a point I had forgotten. I wish I knew the reason for this, but I can only speculate that it had to do with the generally lower traffic and, especially, weight volumes on southern rails.

Actually, your speculation is the answer. The Southern rail system was not a high priority (like general industrialization). The South just did not have the need for a wide network of rails as the North did. Likewise, the south did not need an integrated and unified rail network with common guages. Now, the North did not always have a common rail guage, as you have said, but in general the Northern railways were by far more uniform and more effective.

While your economic reasoning makes a great deal of sense, I think there were other social influences that lead to the Southern industrial inferiority before the war. I'm not too sure of these influences and I don't have the resources handy, so I'm just going to go along with you, because it makes sense.

Everything else you said regarding the post war period makes sense to me, and its nothing new to me either. Agreed!

I'm really interested into understanding the economic reasons for the war, so thanks for the two book suggestions!

I believe I've heard of Dilorenzo, and he is quite biased. I'll give him a try though.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

While your economic reasoning makes a great deal of sense, I think there were other social influences that lead to the Southern industrial inferiority before the war. I'm not too sure of these influences and I don't have the resources handy, so I'm just going to go along with you, because it makes sense.

As far as I know, the South was just as free as the North, discounting...slavery. Industrialization simply did not make economic sense for the South, as it had a severe comparative advantage in "cash crops", so it was more cost effective to import them. Social influences rarely impede economic development unless these social influences result in restrictive legislation. The US itself is a good example of this. The US was a deeply Christian nation, and most religious leaders were deeply suspicious of capitalism, and constantly decried industrialization and urbanization. Despite this, US industrial output quintupled in fewer than thirty years (producing the greatest manufacturing civilization the world had ever seen).