The Upper South

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 06/02/2009 | Douglas Harper

[Davy Buck]

No one can deny the importance of slavery to the feud that split the United States, or that the CSA states made protection of slavery one of their central purposes. But the Southern confederacy -- that is, the national government of the CSA -- was no more built on slavery than was the Northern Union . . .

[DustyMoment]

(sigh) No, their economy was NOT dependent on slavery, it was and, for the most part today, is based on agriculture.

[Non-Sequitur]

No, their economy was NOT dependent on slavery, it was and, for the most part today, is based on agriculture.

Plantation agriculture. It was the source of most of their wealth and the economic engine for the entire region. And that plantation agriculture ran on slave labor. Slavery was a pillar of Southern society and Southern culture, too.

[WarriorPoet]

Then I hope your disdain is equally shared for Camp Douglas, a Union POW camp that was at least as bad, if not worse, than Andersonville. At least Henry Wirz was held accountable for the Andersonville atrocities—no one was ever held accountable for anything at Camp Douglas....

[DustyMoment]

Slavery was a pillar of Southern society and Southern culture, too.

Ya know, non, what you DON'T know makes you more dangerous to America than Zero.

[Non-Sequitur]

Ya know, non, what you DON'T know makes you more dangerous to America than Zero.

Well then by all means enlighten us.

[American_Centurion]

but what was it that the South imported in such amounts that made the tariff a threat to their economic survival?

From the article:

--The Republicans in the 36th Congress made it clear where the interest lay. Their private correspondence shows them interested in only the appearance of being open to compromise and discussion with the South, for the sake of public opinion. Crittenden's proposal was postponed again and again while the Republicans rushed off to take up the revived Morrill Tariff that had been the promise in exchange for Pennsylvania's votes in 1860, and which was brought up on the second day of the session, despite the secession crisis. The higher duties affected iron, cotton bagging, gunny cloth -- the kind of things that would dip directly into the pockets of Southern planters, big and small.

[Non-Sequitur]

The higher duties affected iron, cotton bagging, gunny cloth -- the kind of things that would dip directly into the pockets of Southern planters, big and small.

I read it. So how would it 'dip directly into the pockets of the Southern planters'? How much iron did they use? How much cotton bagging did they import. Probably not much. What little industry there was in the South tended to support the agriculture industry, and it's likely that the cotton bagging and cloth was made locally.

[American_Centurion]

cotton bagging - did the south have textile plants? My history teachers have told me that the southern cotton plantations thrived because textiles were produced in the north AND in England, less in other parts of europe. So they likely imported ALL cotton bagging. How much — enough for food stocks produced in the south, all flour, grains, feeds, sugar.

Gunny cloth - coars jute bagging (notice the “bagging” trend here) used for cotton sacks. ALL cotton shipped north or exported was shipped in gunny cloth sacks.

Iron - Iron farm tools, plows, wagon wheels and bearings, bits for horses, pots, skillets, horse shoes, stoves, nails, door and window hardware, and a ton of other things. The north had the iron, the south didn’t.

Why these things? HMMMMM? I don’t know, couldn’t possibly be they were targeting the south with taxes could it? The north had textile mills, and got their cotton for them from the south so cottong bagging was cheap for them. Gunny cloth, they didn’t really use, crops that needed that were grown in the south. Iron, the north had the iron the south didn’t.

Don’t let facts convince you though.

[Non-Sequitur]

My history teachers have told me that the southern cotton plantations thrived because textiles were produced in the north AND in England, less in other parts of europe.

Most textiles were. The largest textile industries were in the north. However the South did have a limited textile industry which catered to local needs. You have to rememeber that the south produced its own textiles during the rebellion, it didn't start from scratch. Likewise items like gunny cloth.

Iron - Iron farm tools, plows, wagon wheels and bearings, bits for horses, pots, skillets, horse shoes, stoves, nails, door and window hardware, and a ton of other things. The north had the iron, the south didn’t.

The purchase of agricultural implements was not an annual expense - one would expect that a plow or a hoe lasted longer than that. Likewise the other implements you mentioned. Regardless, those same iron farm tools, plows, wagon wheels and bearings, bits for horses, pots, skillets, horse shoes, stoves, nails, door and window hardware, and a other things were bought by Northern consumers as well. They paid the same artifically inflated price that Southerners paid. So the tariff his them equally as hard as Southern consumers.

Don’t let facts convince you though.

I'll try not to. When are you going to produce some?

[Ditto]

But, why let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?

Dusty, the estimated value of the nearly 4 million slaves in the United States in 1860 was over $4 Billion. That would translate into over $12 Trillion in today's dollars. That is a very valuable asset.

And since their was open and vibrant market for slaves, they were in fact a liquid asset that could be bought and sold at any time. As to the ill-treatment from a physical or sexual standpoint, I never said it was a universal condition but it was far from uncommon also.

Those are the facts, but don't let them get in the way of your romantic myths, eh?

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." --- A. Lincoln

[investigateworld]

It does.

However, just because Lincoln, (Pibuh) acknowledged the superiority of the Southern fighting folks, the CSA shouldn't behaved the way they did.

And I don't really want to know if the conditions at Camp Douglas were a retaliation for Andersonville or not.

[American_Centurion]

The purchase of agricultural implements was not an annual expense

Really? How do you know that is a fact? It seems a plausible opinion, except it doesn't take into account breakage, and wear of ground engaging equipment. In my experience with steel implements many parts of a harrow, rake, or plough need to be replaced at least annually if you only plant one crop. I can imagine the frustration of a cotton farmer with multiple single horse ploughs working much more land per ground-engaging-apparattus than modern equipment being made of cast iron. Likely he bought more than one per year. I think you are overestimating the durability of this equipment very badly.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Too bad you had not been born yet in the summer of 1860. You could have kept the Democratic Party together at the convention by reminding them that tariffs, not slavery, was the issue threatening to destroy the Union.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Why would the cost of farm implements be any more of a burden upon poor Southern farmers than on poor Midwestern farmers? Reb apologists like to emphasise that most Southerners were poor farmers who did not own slaves. Most Midwesterners at that time were also poor farmers without slaves who were also dependent on the Northeast for iron goods. If the South seceded because of this burden, why didn't the Midwest secede also?

You can always tell what the particular Civil War thread is about by looking at how the reb fans are describing Southerners. If the topic is slavery itself, every Southerner is supposedly a pre-oil Jed Clampett just trying to keep his family fed. But if the topic is trying to push tariffs as a significant cause of the Civil War, then every Southerner is Ashley Wilkes, rich as sin off the sweat of the brows of his slaves. It must be difficult to be a Confederate apologist and having to try to defend the indefensible, the Deep South secession over slavery.

[American_Centurion]

Midwestern farmers of the time were subsistence to local produce only. They exported exactly jack-chit.

OTOH, Southern farmers were exporting cotton mainly, some other crops as well.

I shouldn’t have to tell you the differences between planting an acre of corn to be sold locally and planting many acres of cotton, but I will. The latter puts much more wear on equipment and requires much more cost to operate.

[American_Centurion]

defend the indefensible, the Deep South secession over slavery

You mistake our defending your slander for defending the indefensible. The simpletons answer for what caused the civil war is slavery, I'm merely educating you.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Midwestern farmers of the time were subsistence to local produce only. They exported exactly jack-chit.

Before the Civil War cotton growing was almost entirely the work of large plantations. The economies of scale in the industry arising from the use of slave labor would have kept the small farmer out of the business. The small Southern farmer like his Midwestern brother, was a subsistence farmer, largely insulated from the market, farming to live and not to get rich.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

You mistake our defending your slander for defending the indefensible. The simpletons answer for what caused the civil war is slavery, I'm merely educating you.

Don't blame me for the slander. Blame the Mississippi simpletons in 1860 who thought the issue was slavery:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

[American_Centurion]

Distribution of Farms by Acreage, 1860 *

 
 

	TOTAL FARMS	3-10 ACRES	10-19 ACRES	20-49 ACRES	50-99 ACRES	100-499 ACRES	500-999 ACRES	1000+ ACRES
ALABAMA	50,064	1,409 (2.8%)	4,379 (8.7%)	16,049 (32.1%)	12,060 (24.1%)	13,455 (26.9%)	2,016 (4.0%)	696 (1.4%)
ARKANSAS	33,190	1,823 (5.5%)	6,075 (18.3%)	13,728 (41.4%)	6,957 (21.0%)	4,231 (12.7%)	307 (0.9%)	69 (0.2%)
FLORIDA	6,396	430 (6.7%)	945 (14.8%)	2,139 (33.4%)	1,162 (18.2%)	1,432 (22.4%)	211  (3.3%)	77 (1.2%)
GEORGIA	53,897	906 (1.7%)	2,803 (5.2%)	13,644 (25.3%)	14,129 (26.2%)	18,821 (34.9%)	2,692 (5.0%)	902 (1.7%)
LOUISIANA	17,281	626 (3.6%)	2,222 (12.9%)	4,882 (28.3%)	3,064 (17.7%)	4,955 (28.7%)	1,161 (6.7%)	371 (2.1%)
MISSISSIPPI	37,007	563 (1.5%)	2,516 (6.8%)	10,967 (29.6%)	9,204 (24.9%)	11,408 (30.8%)	1,868 (5.0%)	481 (1.3%)
NORTH CAROLINA	67,002	2,050 (3.1%)	4,879 (7.3%)	20,882 (31.2%)	18,496 (27.6%)	19,220 (28.7%)	1,184 (1.8%)	311 (0.5%)
SOUTH CAROLINA	28,456	352 (1.2%)	1,219 (4.3%)	6,695 (23.5%)	6,980 (24.5%)	11,369 (40.0%)	1,359 (4.8%)	482 (1.7%)
TENNESSEE	77,741	1,687 (2.2%)	7,245 (9.3%)	22,998 (29.6%)	22,829 (29.4%)	21,903 (28.2%)	921 (1.2%)	158 (0.2%)
TEXAS	37,363	1,832 (4.9%)	6,156 (16.5%)	14,132 (37.8%)	7,857 (21.0%)	6,831 (18.3%)	468 (1.3%)	87 (0.2%)
VIRGINIA	86,468	2,351 (2.7%)	5,565 (6.4%)	19,584 (22.6%)	21,145 (24.5%)	34,300 (39.7%)	2,882 (3.3%)	641 (0.7%)
TOTAL	494,865	14,029 (2.8%)	44,004 (8.9%)	145,700 (29.4%)	123,883 (25.0%)	147,925 (29.9%)	15,069 (3.0%)	4,275 (0.9%)

AS you can see here 30% of all farms in the south were over 100 acres. In that time with manual labor and horse drawn equipment that was huge. I wouldn't doubt there were 0 farms over 100 acres in places like MO and IA, but there were maybe a few. It's most likely anyone with more than 20 acres was farming rice, tobacco, or cotton for export. So 60% of farms in the south were mainly commercial operations.

[American_Centurion]

A thousand quotes of rhetoric.

If the world judges ALL of us by the words of the man elected by 51% of VOTERS then you and I are commies, no?