The "vibrant" southern economy you speak of was built on slavery. Slave property accounted for over 60% of the privately held wealth of the region and that 'wealth' was destroyed with a stroke of a pen. The actual "physical destruction" is not what kept the south poor after the war. Yes, several cities were badly damaged as was some of south’s limited railroads and industrial facilities. But they were rebuilt in relatively short order. But neither was the source of pre-war wealth in the region. Plantations were the source of wealth and aside from burning down the "big house" there was little critical infrastructure to destroy. The south stayed poor after the war because they insisted on maintaining pre-Civil War social and political institutions that were not compatible with a free labor market economy. They did not encourage education, technology, wage labor or enterprise. With a very few exceptions in the post-war era, the south did not produce people like Edison, Carnegie, Westinghouse, Mellon, Rockefeller, Ford or the thousands of other creative industrious young men who rose from humble beginnings to shape a nation and bring general prosperity to the north. The class system of the south did not encourage such men. Some "southrons" point to those facts with pride, but there was a heavy economic cost to pay for preserving that "culture".
Could you please substantiate and flesh out these statements a little more? It seems to me that a free-labor, market economy was all they had left. Yes, the cost of the war in human capital, because of emancipation, was enormous -- mind you these were sunk costs paid in gold, which had suddenly to be written off. In the case of Texas, as I've pointed out above citing Fehrenbach, the value of the slaves held in Texas in 1860 exceeded that of all the real estate in the state, and in gold it was an astronomical sum, and the reason why a purchase-and-emancipation plan was never a serious contender (Lincoln proposing one untimely during the war, but offering only about 25 cents on the dollar out of the national treasury for the slaves to be thus redeemed).
Besides the sunk costs of the emancipated slaves, there was also the money factor: the entire stock of currency and other debts of the Confederacy were wiped out by law. I think the modern equivalent would be M3=0.
It's tough to be progressive, son, when all you've got to progress with is the remaining cotton in the field that the carpetbaggers haven't stolen yet (oh, yes -- the stocks in the cities were seized by the Union army), and no hands to help bring it in and take it to market (if the market hadn't been burned down).
Education? Technology? How about finding something to eat? First things first, boy.
But you're right, I'm sure; that South sure was retrograde, wasn't it?
IIRC, Rockefeller was already on his way by the end of the Civil War. The first "oil boom" occurred during the War, in the Pennsylvania oil country, which was PARO ("producing at rate of": oilfield usage) about two million barrels per year in 1863. As yet, its use was primarily as illuminating oil, replacing the declining production of whale oil.
The class system of the south did not encourage such men.
How about, "the economic condition -- called 'prostration' -- of the South did not encourage such men....or their relatives.....or anyone I know....."
Come on, Ditto, you're exceeding the bromide speed limit here. Try to keep it between the ditches.
.....and he pivots, jumper, andHakeemgoesupwithhimREEE-JECTEDDDD!!!OHwhattablock....
No basket, Ditto. Would you like to try for the rebound? Don't mind Charles's elbows -- they're always like that.
As was the vibrant northern economy. There was no market for much of the manufactured goods without the South and no cotton for the textile mills. The south stayed poor after the war because they insisted on maintaining pre-Civil War social and political institutions that were not compatible with a free labor market economy
Nonsense. The South stayed poor because all of the capitol available in the postwar years was sent to the developing west. There was no money to loan to Southern industrialists until the 1890s and even then each state was saddled with millions in debt incurred by crooked yankees who were appointed to office when elected officials were deposed by the victors of the war: your rotten radical party you now call the GOP. The Southern states were occupied militarily until 1877 and their political institutions were imported form New England. How you manage to live with a head stuffed so full of nonsense is a mystery. Are all yankees ignorant socialists or is it just you few who visit these threads?
There's simply no way you could actually believe all of this rot unless you wanted to be decieved by the marxists who taught you in college.
You are attempting to reduce economic systems to terms of labor alone. Doing so is fallacy regardless of where it is tried, be it by you or by Karl Marx. While slavery cannot be ignored, to claim that it alone, or any system of labor alone for that matter, is the entirity of any economy is to commit the error of labor theory reductionism.
Slave property accounted for over 60% of the privately held wealth of the region and that 'wealth' was destroyed with a stroke of a pen.
Got any sources of those stats, cause most of the figures I've seen assert that between 50 and 65% of the southern economy's wealth as a whole met physical destruction by the war itself. I believe I even saw one of those stats in one of McPherson's books.
The actual "physical destruction" is not what kept the south poor after the war.
According to the commonly accepted statistic I cited above it was.
Yes, several cities were badly damaged
I think 95% destruction qualifies as somewhat more than simply "badly damaged." Try complete destruction.
as was some of south?s limited railroads and industrial facilities.
Don't forget crops, farms, and shipping.
But they were rebuilt in relatively short order.
Of course, for the most part. That tends to be the case after war. But had they not been destroyed in the first place, they would not have needed to have been rebuilt. The destruction was forgone opportunity.
But neither was the source of pre-war wealth in the region.
The commonly accepted stats, between 50-65%, says otherwise.
The south stayed poor after the war because they insisted on maintaining pre-Civil War social and political institutions that were not compatible with a free labor market economy.
You're committing the labor reduction fallacy again. If you intend to take part in this debate, go learn economic theory.
They did not encourage education, technology, wage labor or enterprise. With a very few exceptions in the post-war era, the south did not produce people like Edison, Carnegie, Westinghouse, Mellon, Rockefeller, Ford
Evidently you've never heard of the Texas oil tycoons, Howard Hughes, or the southern wing of the Vanderbilt family.
The class system of the south did not encourage such men.
Labor reduction fallacy. Go learn some economics because you are strongly resembling the class historians of the political left.
Some "southrons" point to those facts with pride, but there was a heavy economic cost to pay for preserving that "culture".
And on the flip side, there was a heavy cultural cost to pay for yankeeland's industrial economic interventionism. We're still feeling it to this day, or have you not noticed what regions of the country are dominated by adamant defenders of abortion on demand, the normalization of homosexual perversions, the elimination of religion from public life, and the substitution of basic morality with systems of environmental pseudo-ethics, idolatrous atheism, and diversitopian communalist philosophies.
In case you're still wondering I'll give you a hint: It ain't the bible belt.