I wouldn't disagree with that. I only mentioned the abolitionists because a few wealthy Northerners did give money to John Brown and other anti-slavery activists, and neo-Confederates make much of that. They were atypical and not representative of the North as a whole or of wealthy bankers and industrialists.
But one word of caution: out and out abolitionists - people who'd be recognized as abolitionists today - were few, but there were plenty of ways Northerners could oppose the slaveholding interest and be labeled as "abolitionists" by pro-slavery extremists.
Since they did not have the economies of scale and could not compete on price with established manufacturers in Britain, they also could not offer wages that were as good.
By 1860, the US actually had more people (barely) than the UK, so the US domestic market was at least comparable to the British. I suspect that by 1860, Northern mill owners were competitive with British manufacturers. Competition meant they had to compete and weren't guaranteed that they'd come out on top, or even that they'd survive. The British could beat them out sometimes, since they had a head start, but I wouldn't say that US products were always more expensive or inferior.
That agriculture was saddled with paying for industrialization was not unusual.
My understanding is that farmers and manufacturers in the North recognized that they were working together. Trade between the cities and the countryside got canals and railroads built, and banks and warehouses and retail stores established.
Southerners had a political grievance -- they thought the Yankees threatened slavery -- and that made them resent Northern merchants and manufacturers. I'm not sure that middling and poor Southerners were as angry at Northerners at this time as wealthy and politically powerful planters were (obviously, that changed later and feelings were very different during the Populist Era).
It's funny, because many very wealthy individuals today are supporting liberal groups, including some we would regard as liberal terrorist groups. Many people on our side of the Aisle are always quick to blame George Soros, but there is a whole host of liberal billionaires out there that are funding liberal kooks.
Wealthy Urban Liberals that generally live on the Coasts. Same now as then.
I wouldn’t disagree with that. I only mentioned the abolitionists because a few wealthy Northerners did give money to John Brown and other anti-slavery activists, and neo-Confederates make much of that. They were atypical and not representative of the North as a whole or of wealthy bankers and industrialists.
But one word of caution: out and out abolitionists - people who’d be recognized as abolitionists today - were few, but there were plenty of ways Northerners could oppose the slaveholding interest and be labeled as “abolitionists” by pro-slavery extremists.
It wasn’t that 6 guys provided financial support for a terrorist. It was that knowing this, these 6 enjoyed widespread support in the North both from the people as well as government officials in their states. Imagine what our reaction today would be if say Canada refused to bring to justice 6 locals who openly financed a terrorist attack on us. Its not about the 6 guys....its about the fact that many supported them knowing they did this.
They were not competitive with British mills yet - thus the screaming for a huge tariff. Britain had a big empire it supplied remember. It wasn’t just their domestic market they were selling to.
Southerners had a political grievance — they thought the Yankees threatened slavery — and that made them resent Northern merchants and manufacturers. I’m not sure that middling and poor Southerners were as angry at Northerners at this time as wealthy and politically powerful planters were (obviously, that changed later and feelings were very different during the Populist Era).
Many of those canals and railroads in the North were paid for with federal money...and the federal government got 90% of its revenue from tariffs. Yankees did not threaten slavery - they made it very clear that they were perfectly willing to protect it in the states that had it. Poor Southerners were affected by higher prices for manufactured goods as would be the inevitable outcome of high tariffs and plenty of them grew at least some cotton on their farms to provide an income for things they could not produce themselves....so tariffs that reduced their sales abroad (which was one of the effects of them) was once again money out of their pockets. There was a general feeling in the Southern states that they were being exploited. Look today at how upset people get about the feds taking more from their state and giving more to other states. It was the same then.