On this date in 1864

In 1848 William Marshall stumbled upon a rock. There were rocks all around him but this one was different. This one was worth a thousand times what the others were worth. In the ensuing California Gold Rush thousands of men came to the region hoping to strike it rich. Many tried, a handful succeeded.

During the Nineteenth Century a few men found a gold rush of sorts. They discovered that cotton grew easily in a certain geographical area of the United States. These planters grew and cultivated their crops and a few of the few grew fabulously wealthy.

Notice that nowhere in my story did I claim that everyone who attempted those endeavors became rich. Nor did the neighbors of the plantation owners. Most southerners were (literally) dirt poor. Just like their northern brothers. Most scratched to survive.

It is the height (depth?!) of dishonesty to claim that King Cotton made everyone rich or even the sectional argument that “southerners” benefited universally. It didn’t happen. A handful became obscenely wealthy while most did not.

I see so much of degenerateLamp’s “arguments” wrapped up in this fallacy and it is so ludicrous to even offer it serious consideration.

Yes, Cotton was a cash cow. Yes, Cotton generated vast amounts of money. Yes, lots of people sought to cash in on this windfall, including many who realistically weren’t deserving. That’s life.

How cultivation of Cotton related to other crops is irrelevant, just as it is a misconception to attempt to rationalize cultivation of Cotton to other endeavors such as fishing or digging for gold. King Cotton represented an aberration in the scheme of things. It was serendipity at play - a wonderful windfall. Of curse some of the shine wears off of the wonderfulness when one considers the human price of that particular crop. King Cotton wouldn’t have been king except for the impressed labor of other human beings.

My point is that the slavers took a practice - slavery - that was unseemly but generally accepted, and tortured it out of all proportion in the pursuit of King Cotton. No one envisioned immense work-farms containing millions of slaves. But it came to pass. And when the practice that was tolerated ceased to be tolerable the slavers sought to defend their windfall - at all cost. At ANY cost.

DiogenesLamp: "That is the amusing conclusion reached by the guy who created the map.
It completely ignores the fact that 75-85% of all the export revenue came from the South."

And that remains a Big Lie regardless of how often you repeat it.
"The South" had only one product of major note and that was cotton, 50% of US total exports -- nothing else came anywhere close.
Tobacco, #2 @ 6% was grown predominantly in Union states and so was not a "Southern product".

DiogenesLamp: " Anyone understanding the nature of trade (you give them something, they give you something back) realizes immediately that the vast majority of all those import goods had to be paid for by Southern export goods. "

50% were paid for by cotton exports, nothing else of significance came from the Confederate South.

DiogenesLamp: "The map creates a false picture, because it does not show where the money was coming from to pay for all those goods.
The bulk of the money was coming from the South.
And that is why there was a war."

Actually, that map is more accurate in showing where the buyers were for foreign imports.
The reason you don't "get" it is you ignore a huge part of the Big Picture equation -- Southerners "imported" $200 million per year in goods from the North.
That's where the money came from to pay for all those tariffs in Northern cities.

But despite your repeated claims, none of that was the reason for secession or Civil War.
The reason is economic issues are just "politics as usual", nothing anyone would go to war over.
Slavery, on the other hand was a matter of life & death to many people of that time.

That would have made in highly unlikely that Middle Western or Western farmers and ranchers would have thrown in with the Confederacy. They might have wanted their own country, but they weren't going to be the tail on the Confederate dog.

I think a good example of this lies in California. Confederate agents and advocates did their best to cobble up support for the idea of joining the rebels. They failed because the people didn't want it and there were too few to rig any votes.

I chuckle when I see that DegenerateLamp still doesn’t understand the import of that graphic. So close and yet so far. LoL

“The South just didn’t have the big cities (except for New Orleans)”.

After New Orleans fell to Union forces in 1862, the largest city in the Confederacy was where ever the Army of the Potomac camped.

Help me out here. Who fired the first shots; At Ft. Sumpter?

Tobacco, #2 @ 6% was grown predominantly in Union states and so was not a “Southern product”.

Per the 1860 Census, the US produced 434,183,500 lbs. of tobacco.

the 11 States that would become the Confederacy produced 203,121,700 lbs. of tobacco in 1860.

The 4 states that were called “border states” produced
171,633,400 lbs. of tobacco in 1860.

All other states in 1860 produced 59,428,400 lbs. of tobacco.

Rockrr: " Nor did the neighbors of the plantation owners.
Most southerners were (literally) dirt poor.
Just like their northern brothers.
Most scratched to survive.
It is the height (depth?!) of dishonesty to claim that King Cotton made everyone rich or even the sectional argument that “southerners” benefited universally.
It didn’t happen.
A handful became obscenely wealthy while most did not. "

I agree that many Southerners were "dirt poor" in 1860, despite the regional prosperity brought by King Cotton.
I think especially of my family's neighbors in Appalachia who had no slaves, didn't grow cotton and had no transportation to market whatever cash crops they did produce.
They were poor enough that lack of salt in 1863, withheld by Confederates because of their Unionist sympathies -- salt preserves meat -- made them desperate.

But statistically, the cotton South is a different story.
Of course not everyone was wealthy, but many were, especially if you count the market value of slaves as wealth.
In some deep south States nearly half of families owned slaves and that alone made them wealthier than their non-slaveholding Northern cousins.
Sure, Tara from "Gone With the Wind" is a bit of fantasy, but not completely unrealistic.
On average, Deep South whites were better off than Northerners, especially those working in rapidly growing industries.

Another way to look at it is, there were far more wealthy Southern planters than Northern industrialists.
And as of 1860, plantation wealth proved both more certain and more secure than any other path to get there.

Thanks!

I take your tobacco numbers to mean future Confederates produced about 40% and Union regions 60% in 1860 (calculating in my head).

Those numbers might also tell us what percent of tobacco got exported, but the key fact remains that in 1861 with the loss of Confederate exports, Union tobacco exports fell only 15% suggesting Confederate exports were relatively irrelevant to the national economy.

Actually the Confederate states produced 47% of the tobacco grown in the U.S. The border states and the balance of Union states account for 53% of produced in 1860.