Posted on 02/01/2016 5:09:00 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
I wonder if the Adams Sentinel sells ads to a shoe factory.
The America of 1856 was clearly at a crossroads. There were a number of forces driving the Union apart, of which slavery was the dominant issue.
I’m currently reading “The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review” by Larry D. Kramer. It is a very good legal history of the evolution of Judicial Review and Judicial Supremacy from colonial times to the present day, with an emphasis on the Courts as moving parts in the political machinery of America. I have just reached the point of Dred Scott and the pre-civil war era. In 1856, America has politically emerged from the Jacksonian populist democracy, and the evolution of political parties. While Judicial Review is universally recognized, Judicial Supremacy, the Courts as the highest and last decision on the Constitution, is not. There is still a strong sense of popular sovereignty, and with it a concept of “departmentalism,” in that in a separation of powers dispute, each branch of government was just as capable of determining constitutionality in their own sphere as was the Court. That the Court was the supreme and final arbiter of federalism in the federal/state relationship was firmly established and not questioned. It was among the branches of the Federal Government where the issue was not yet settled.
In 1856, the momentum of Jacksonian democracy, and the ideas of popular sovereignty, are alive and well. The democratic party created by Van Buren has become the dominant political machine in the United States, while the Whigs were formed as the “non-party opposition.” Whigs were defined as “not them” and inclined to oppose party politics and creation of a party machine. Their very nature of eschewing party politics made them inadequate to oppose a political machine in a political process. So they attempted to become a party of necessity so that they could oppose party politics.
Obviously such a political construct was self-defeating; it never coalesced around a concrete set of political principles that could hold it together, other than “we’re not them.” It’s no wonder it was so short-lived. The dynamics of American politics demanded that the opposition party stand for something, and the abolition of slavery is begging to become that issue. It appears that the American political class isn’t quite ready to embrace it.
The interesting take I got from Kramer’s book is that Van Buren, from the get-go, organized the democrat party on the basis of the concentration and monopoly of political power. Public policy is entirely subordinate to the function of politics, and all policy is based on accumulating and preserving political power, not common good.
Some things never change.
The Northern economy is booming, the Southern economy is not. Not to the same extent as in the North. The South does not realize it, but the window of opportunity to secede from the Union and make it stick if it comes to war, is already closed. It probably closed no later than 1850. The population, wealth, industry and natural resources of the North are already far greater than the South will ever be able to muster, and that gap is growing with every week’s record import of dry goods at New York.
Odd that you should ask, but, as a matter of fact, yes there is some news relating to shoes & boots in Gettysburg.
But of what possible historical significance could they be?
;-)
True, but only when compared to the North in overall terms.
By any other standards the South, especially Cotton South was booming as never before.
Indeed, except for the North and possibly England, in 1856 the South was the most prosperous place in the world, especially if you were a white land-owner.
By 1860 the average white Southerner was measurably better off economically than their Northern cousins.
Most Northerners couldn't see that, of course, because so much of Southern wealth was invested in their slaves.
And those slaves represented asset values far greater than all the Northern factories, machinery, railroads, etc., combined.
From our Revolution in 1776 until secession in 1861, the prices for slaves doubled, then doubled again, while the population of slaves doubled three times, and cotton production doubled repeatedly:
henkster: "The population, wealth, industry and natural resources of the North are already far greater than the South will ever be able to muster, and that gap is growing with every week's record import of dry goods at New York."
True, but first let's remember that the majority of those New York imports were paid for by exports of cotton & tobacco.
And second, the Confederacy could well have won its independence if Jefferson Davis had been a little smarter, and Abraham Lincoln a bit dumber.
I'm sure you realize this is a flagrant violation of "henkster's law."
One of those immutable laws of nature, like Newton's laws, Ohlm's law, Moore's law and Murphy's law, laws which just cannot be violated no matter what.
But... but... Mr. Policeman, I only took my eye off the speedometer for two seconds, I just don't know how that needle could have gotten up to 85 so quick!
;-)
Gettysburg's other newspaper:
The Gettysburg Republican Compiler
Very surprising documents from President Pierce to Congress, about Bleeding Kansas;
and, at the bottom, a major complaint against powers that be:
The statement I hear most often on the bench is: "I was keeping up with the flow of traffic." The reply they get is: "If that's what the flow of traffic is doing, it's about time we started writing some tickets. Since we have to start somewhere, I guess we'll start with you."
As for the economic expansion of the United States, yes, the south experienced substantial economic growth between 1820 and 1860. Compared to the great empires of Europe: Ottoman, Russian and Austrian, in 1860 the southern United States was a comparable technological and industrial power. In regard to all of Africa and Asia, the south was an industrial power beyond comparison. But compared to the northern United States, they might as well have been any of the other "backward" areas of the earth.
The passage I like to quote as an illustration from "Bruce Catton's Civil War," discussing Col. Haupt, the director of the United States Army Military Railroads:
Yes, I know we are getting ahead of ourselves here, but the industrial muscle so easily at Col. Haupt's command was not created by the war or for the war, it was created the two decades before the war began. And with the industrial muscle was the financial power. Not only could Haupt order up 10 miles of railroad iron as the spare change of Burnside's military operation, it was also literally the spare change of the North's financing of the war.
The South had a large accumulation of "wealth" before the war. However, it was not the type of wealth that translated into military power. The "human capital" of slaves was estimated at $3 Billion in 1860. (As an aside, because of the decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, if the Federal government wanted to "free" the slaves, it was going to have to come up with $3 Billion as "just compensation" under the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause. Fortunately, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment took care of that problem.) I suspect that $3 Billion was an asset bubble anyway; a value that had been bid up far beyond its real worth. It showed during the Civil War; that $3 Billion wasn't convertible into weaponry.
Industrial warfare was born in the coming war. Lee and Jackson would demonstrate that battlefield victories could still be won by dash and maneuver as in the days of Napoleon. But the larger undertaking of war itself changed. Unless a "decisive victory" could be obtained to win quickly, victory might still go to the side with the bigger battalions as Napoleon said. But more decisively, victory would go to the side with the bigger factories to sustain and equip those battalions.
Haupt was the precursor of the American military officer of the next century. Yes, in World War II we still had the daring, dashing commanders like Patton and Halsey. But the epitome of the American officer was more like Spruance, Nimitz, Bradley or LeMay; the CEO-type who would have been interchangeable in command of an air wing, fleet, army, or the overseas operations of DuPont or Ford.
A century later, Japan will try their turn, starting a war with the United States where they have a small fraction of the industrial power they are taking on. Forever seeking the "Decisive Battle," Japan will never find victory in it, and will be crushed in a grinding war of attrition. The romantic notion is the underdog fighting against the overwhelming odds of the machine. We tend to be sympathetically drawn to them, whether it's Jackson's "foot cavalry" or even for some, von Manstein's panzers against the Soviet horde. Romantic, yes. But still they are still losers.
One way the South could have relieved the inept/corrupt supply situation would have with allowing sutlers, like the Union did. But the South wouldn't allow that as the CSA QM's didn't want the competition.
y is sc greyed out?
True, but there had never before in history been a war won by industrial might alone, against better motivated & led armies.
So Jefferson Davis had no reason to suspect that Confederate bluff & bluster alone was not enough to carry the day.
henkster: "The "human capital" of slaves was estimated at $3 Billion in 1860.
(As an aside, because of the decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, if the Federal government wanted to "free" the slaves, it was going to have to come up with $3 Billion as "just compensation" under the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause. Fortunately, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment took care of that problem.)
I suspect that $3 Billion was an asset bubble anyway; a value that had been bid up far beyond its real worth."
The actual number was in excess of $4 billion, greater than all the industrial assets of the North combined.
And it was far from a "bubble", since high prices were driven by both the relative scarcity of slaves (after importing new slaves was outlawed, 1808) and ever-growing demand for cotton especially, but also tobacco & protected sugar.
As results, slave prices, populations and productivity doubled & re-doubled from 1776 through 1861.
That's far from a "bubble", it's a long term trend, which was however, destroyed by Civil War.
henkster: "Unless a "decisive victory" could be obtained to win quickly, victory might still go to the side with the bigger battalions as Napoleon said.
But more decisively, victory would go to the side with the bigger factories to sustain and equip those battalions."
Agreed, but the hypothetical here (albeit hugely premature) is whether the Confederacy could, somehow, have won its independence.
The answer is, yes maybe, but only by doing what they couldn't do, and by a Union derelict of good leadership.
So please, officer, don't ticket me, my house is on fire and I just have to get home right away... ;-)
Thanks for that question.
South Carolina in those days had different rules.
There was no popular vote, and their electors were chosen by the state legislature.
In 1856, South Carolina's 8 electoral votes went to "Doughface" Northern Democrat, Pennsylvanian James Buchanan.
In 1860 South Carolina joined other Deep South states (plus North Carolina, Maryland & Delaware) in choosing electors pledged to Southern Democrat Breckenridge.
After the 1860 election, on November 10, 1860 South Carolina's General Assembly called for the election of a special secession convention, which convened on December 17.
It's not clear who-all elected the secession convention, or how.
Good point; I hadn't thought of that. Is this a reflection of southern "aristocracy" and class divisions in the South? You could see a feudal aristocracy in Europe having the same problems. And this describes the Russians perfectly in the Russo-Japanese War and World War 1.
Lest we forget or confuse why South Carolina chose the path of Secession, lets look at it in their own words. And review the declaration of causes from Georgia, Mississippi, Virginia and Texas as well:
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
When you get down to it, it wasn't "state's rights," it was slavery. The South didn't want to give up owning people, and they thought the Republicans were going to make them do it. The only curious exception was Texas, who had in independent basis for Secession in addition to abolition of slavery. They claimed that the Federal government was not securing their border against Mexico or against the Commanche Indians. That has a familiar ring to it.
Given that the value of slaves was $3 Billion or $4 Billion, and with Dred Scott v. Sanford requiring compensation for Emancipation, the south should have cashed out their slaves and reaped the economic windfall. Instead, the "value" of those slaves was wiped out completely with the 13th and 14th Amendments.
By the way, even if the "value" of the slaves exceeded all of the value of the industry in the North, the value of northern industry was tangible and lasting. The "value" of slaves as property was zero, once they were declared to be free, which tells me there really wasn't a value there at all.
Agreed.
henkster: "The South didn't want to give up owning people, and they thought the Republicans were going to make them do it."
Sure, but it's extraordinarily important to visualize in your mind a map of "the South", because it includes three large regions and several smaller ones, each of which were measurably different on these subjects.
When you say, "the South" in this context, what you really mean is the Deep South -- the Cotton South -- plus some areas with high slave populations in the Upper South.
In those states, by 1860, both slave populations and the numbers of white families owning slaves approached 50%, so they were the hotbeds of secessionism.
Outside the seven Deep South states, four Upper South states all had large regions with very few slaves and no interest in secession.
Those regions supported the Union, even to the point, in West Virginia's case, of seceding from secessionist Virginia.
In 1860 the four Border States numbers and percentages of slaves were much less, and in some places falling.
In Delaware slaves totaled under 2% of the population, and in Maryland, half of slaves had already been freed.
In Missouri the percentage of slaves was falling as floods of anti-slavery immigrants moved there.
The key points to remember about those Border States (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri) are that:
henkster: "Texas, who had in independent basis for Secession in addition to abolition of slavery.
They claimed that the Federal government was not securing their border against Mexico or against the Commanche Indians."
But we can be 100% certain that complaint was bogus to the max because the US Army officer in charge of defending the Texas border lands was Col. Rbt E. Lee, today affectionately known as "Saint Marse Robert" who was never known to do anything wrong, so any criticism is not only mistaken, its blasphemy.
henkster: "...the south should have cashed out their slaves and reaped the economic windfall. "
[LOUD SIRENS AND FLASHING LIGHTS FROM BEHIND, BULL HORN:]
ALL RIGHT DRIVER, PULL OVER, PULL OVER, GET OUT OF YOUR CAR.
DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE NOW VIOLATED THE LAW OF THE LAND AND RULES OF THE ROAD HERE BY SUGGESTING A COUNTER-FACTUAL THAT IS IN COMPLETE OPPOSITION TO (so called) HENKSTER'S LAW?
YOU CANNOT PROPOSE THAT THE CONFEDERACY VOLUNTARILY GIVE UP ITS SLAVES, BECAUSE THAT VIOLATES ITS THE VERY RAISON D'ETRE.
WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE WHEN THE CONFEDERACY WAS OFFERED PEACE ON CONDITION THEY GRANT COMPENSATED FREEDOM TO SLAVES, THEY REFUSED, CHOOSING INSTEAD TOTAL DEFEAT AND UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.
SO THIS IS A WARNING, DRIVER, I'LL LET YOU GO THIS TIME, ON CONDITION YOU PROMISE NOT TO DO IT AGAIN.
Next time, you chip in an extra $20 to the Free Republic Benevolent Fund.
;-)
The Union had the opposite problem. Whether brought about by the overwhelming material wealth or just the nature of the beast, the Union officer corps excelled at day to day logistics and administration. They pretty much sucked at actually fighting battles and as tacticians most, but not all, were severely lacking. It is a shame because Union infantry got a bad reputation from what was really poor leadership.
In a nutshell, painting with a broad brush with many notable exceptions, the CS Army commanders were great tacticians, the Union Army was commanded by great logicians and campaigners.
They had a leap year n 1856
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.