In the American Civil War, Gettysburg has come to be known as the high point of the Confederacy. If you haven’t visited the park, you should. Noble men on both sides, never really understanding the totality of their struggles.

One superior economic system overmatching another. The plantation system was a failed economic system. It really wasn’t about treating people nicely. It was about achieving economic supremacy. It’s all about the money. Always has been.

The plantation system, like the USSR, are in the dust bins of history.

But if the North was already pursuing a more successful economic model, why would the Southern states secede, rather than just abandon their deficient model and adopt that of the North?

Bear in mind guys agricultural exports have not been a source of wealth since the industrial revolution, and it is the defining thing for a "developing" country, or used to be. Russia in the 19th century was considered backward and was not very prosperous because agriculture and forestry were her principle industries - like a colony.

Most commodities can be purchased from other sources. The main thing the South had was cotton (King Cotton), and they were relying on cotton to drive European powers (principally Britain and France of course) to intervene.

But the Union had all the ships and the factories to build them, and could blockade the South. Britain wasn't happy through much of the war, especially when the Union seized a British ship (The Trent Affair) and Lincoln cut the telegraph lines in order to avoid having to answer furious questions from Her Majesty's government. (Telegraphs were the North's secret weapon; they laid more lines during the war and had a telegraph corps. The South did not have the cables to string and saw her internal communications degrade as the war progressed.)  The British, despite wishing the Union ill, wasn't prepared to extend a helping hand to the slave-holding south.

Robert E. Lee said of slavery "it's like holding a wolf by the ears; you don't like it but are afraid to let go". This was true of the antiquated plantation system in general. It was much easier for the North to industrialize, since they always had small farm holdings and plenty of free people to work. Oh, and the collapse of the Rum industry in the North when the French finally figured out they could make it on the sugar islands themselves was a powerful impetus. The South suffered from the cheap labor problem; a plantation could only be competitive if it had free labor aka slaves, which put poor whites and free blacks out of work. Slavery is horribly inefficient, but nobody could figure a way to be economically viable in a slave/plantation market. But what do you do? Go bankrupt trying to change?

The abolitionists were adamant about there being no programs to help the plantation/slave holders, too. Britain was quite sensible about how it banned slavery, compensating slave holders (slaves were worth a LOT of money) and helping the economy transition. In America, though, the abolitionists wanted to PUNISH the South, and without a deal the move away from the plantation system was not economically viable.

So the Southern plantation owners did the only thing they could; planted more, doubled down, which dropped the prices of cotton and tobacco and the like. The end result was it became harder and harder to survive. It was a machine that eventually swallowed up the plantation system.

The plantation system was a trap. It was unproductive, which forced the plantation owners to double down on what they were doing. America was on it's way to becoming a plantation economy with illegal immigrants taking the role (albeit paid) of the slaves, and with outsourcing to China and Mexico and whatnot taking the place of Southern outsourcing of manufacturing in the antebellum South. I wrote about the similarities between the two at American Thinker back in 2006. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2006/04/plantation_america.html

" If the "social, economic infrastructure"

is, as Richard notes, collapsing on it's own, how is secession an act of societal preservation?" Duh. T'was the northern states that would have collapsed if the south seceded, because their 'economic' model didn't create enough tax revenues to carry themselves. As for the southern states, with the additional funds they'd have from keeping the tariff money they sent to the north, they could have easily created their own industrial base.

T'was the north that wanted the war to preserve itself, not the south who simply wanted a divorce. Follow the money.

Badda bing, although it wasn't "the north" per se, it was the Whigs / Republican power brokers in the north that did that, not the northern people who were more than willing to see the south secede. No different than today. Tis always those with the money & power that are willing to do anything to maintain the status quo.

ing northern states who wanted to 'nationalize' the fruits & production of the south."

Richard responds:

" I’ll stick with my assessment. Tobacco is still grown in Pennsylvania.

Cotton and tobacco were commodities that could be sourced from anywhere.

I’ll absolutely agree that the North bled the South dry and liked it that way.
BTW, cotton wasn't merely a crop that southern states provided to the world, but cotton also provided textiles which were sought after by Europe and the rest of the world. The north had nothing the world needed. Roads and infrastructure weren't exportable.

I add:

"There is a great deal of disagreement about how it would have gone had the South seceded successfully and I doubt we'll solve it here (although it is fun to discuss). The case can certainly be made that the North would have suffered (they were competing against British industry, after all.) But then the agricultural produce of the South had plenty of competitors too. I think Richard's point is still valid; the South couldn't reduce cost because they already were at rock bottom thanks to the inefficiencies of the plantation system. The North could compete with Britian because they had access to reasonably cheap labor and cheap raw materials. And, of course, they had access to much in the way of agriculture themselves, at least food production. One of the problems the South had was they were more into cash crops. When the Union blockade stopped food from coming into the South people were starving - in an agricultural economy! Of course the North was blockading the Mississippi and Ohio river systems too, cutting the South off from transportation. And, without industry, the South couldn't replace rail lines. But be that as it may, I agree with Richard; the Southern economy was simply an antiquated system that was doomed to die, just as the Blue Collar steel mills have largely died in America today. The old labor union jobs were wonderful in their heyday but they simply aren't competitive now. I fear that was the fate of the plantation system. BTW I think slavery was on it's way out in the South as well, but they were looking to find a solution to how it would be done. Slavery was simply to inefficient and costly over the long haul and everyone knew it at that time. "

Posted by: OKBet at October 11, 2023 03:56 AM (kKKJ7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment