Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suppose preservation of a lifestyle and labor force. The South was a very inhospitable place in Civil War days. There are a handfull of historians who argue the South quite possibly would have never indulged in slavery had the climate not been sub-tropical and a steady flow of immigrants willingly came there to work.
I think this makes sense, if not for anything else due to the fact that the cash crops of the South do not grow well in Continental Climates
I think this makes sense, if not for anything else due to the fact that the cash crops of the South do not grow well in Continental Climates
Another thing to look at is not only the climate, but the lay of the land. New York City has become a great port because of its hinterland. You could sail a ship from NYC to Buffalo and then onward to Chicago and Duluth. You had farming and Buffalo was an important place for processing grain. You could ship things in and out of the hinterland. Boston, Baltimore and Philadelphia, not so much. However, with northern cities like Philadelphia, they were major industrial centers, so this allowed for immigration. Pittsburgh, was a perfect place for the steel industry to be. Three rivers(for which the namesake of the former Three Rivers Stadium came from). Coal and iron ore were right there. The water transportation was available so you could send ships with steel downriver, as far south as New Orleans.
In the South, this is how it worked. The dependence on agriculture made little room for other industries. The South was basically an agrarian society. Ports live Savannah, Charleston, New Orleans, and Mobile may have been decent ports, but there were some issues. Ordinarily, their locations might be of little problem up north. However, the lack of rivers going far inland presented a problem. The subtropical climate and lack of glaciers being there beforehand meant rivers were more shallow. Heat and longer summers meant more evaporations hence shallower rivers, and this is especially the case for the Savannah river.
Geography is probably why the majority of immigrants who moved to the South were in the port cities
Birmingham "Pittsburgh of the South", just didn't have a big market for steel. Pittsburgh had a market for it in the North.
With lack of use for cash crops, one has to turn to other things. Pennsylvania had plenty of coal and iron ore. So did Alabama. Alabama never found this out until way after.
I would say that lack of industries combined with people being enslaved made very little room for immigration. Since African-Americans were enslaved, they didn't get paid and therefore, immigrants couldn't compete for jobs in the South, specifically farm jobs. For this reason, immigrants went north.
I wonder why racism is not a problem where you live?
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
89.4% white.
Oh, that's why.
I never said racism isn't a problem where I live, it is, there is racism everywhere. But like I answered your similar post on another thread, the ethnic population in a small suburb of a major city has nothing to do with the topic. Portland as a whole has a very ethnically diverse population, along with much of the west coast. Racism is not only about "black" and "white," or how many people of any certain race live in a town or region.
In the South, this is how it worked. The dependence on agriculture made little room for other industries. The South was basically an agrarian society. Ports live Savannah, Charleston, New Orleans, and Mobile may have been decent ports, but there were some issues. Ordinarily, their locations might be of little problem up north. However, the lack of rivers going far inland presented a problem. The subtropical climate and lack of glaciers being there beforehand meant rivers were more shallow. Heat and longer summers meant more evaporations hence shallower rivers, and this is especially the case for the Savannah river.
Geography is probably why the majority of immigrants who moved to the South were in the port cities
Birmingham "Pittsburgh of the South", just didn't have a big market for steel. Pittsburgh had a market for it in the North.
With lack of use for cash crops, one has to turn to other things. Pennsylvania had plenty of coal and iron ore. So did Alabama. Alabama never found this out until way after.
I would say that lack of industries combined with people being enslaved made very little room for immigration. Since African-Americans were enslaved, they didn't get paid and therefore, immigrants couldn't compete for jobs in the South, specifically farm jobs. For this reason, immigrants went north.
I think some of your points are pretty accurate about the economy...but I disagree with your assessment on the rivers. Sure, some of the East Coast rivers in the South aren't so big...but what about the Mississippi? New Orleans was a major port at the time, and one of the largest cities in America at the time of the war...that was no coincidence. Let's not forget that a number of naval battles during the Civil War were fought not just in the ports and bays along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, but on the Mississippi and Tennessee Rivers, as well.
Feeding off of the Mississippi is the Ohio (like you mention for Pittsburgh). It just so happens that two of the main tributaries of the Ohio are the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Both are sizable rivers and allowed for river port trading. Nashville was already an established river port at the time, and Memphis later became a very important inland port for the South.
Other than that, I think some of your points are very valid. The climate for the South was much more suitable for growing crops than it was in the North...hence the early dominance of the agrarian society and plantation farming. The divide between the industrial North and the agrarian South was one of the major causes of the Civil War. Yes, slavery was an integral part of the cause as well, as the South's economy was dependent on it, and the abolition of slavery would ultimately "favor" the North's economy in the long run.
Aside from heavy industry, such as coal and iron (coal would later become a much larger industry in the poor Appalachian region of the South), the textile industry flourished after the Civil War. There were quite a number of textile mills built in Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina during that time. In fact, the period after the Civil War resulted in quite a boom in industry. Since the economy could no longer depend on slave labor in the fields, a lot of focus shifted to industry. Despite the blow to the Southern agricultural economy, cities in the South boomed in the Reconstruction Era.
i think the south gets respect. i do agree though in that the south is sort of looked down upon as being somewhat podunk and backwards, although this is of course mostly not fair.
of course a lot of this comes from how religious people are there. and say what you want to refute it but people are much more religious in the south, nearly half of all southerners go to church weekly, while in the rest of the nation it's not even a third. not saying being religious is a bad thing, there are plenty of educated religious people, but belief classes with everything from Darwinism, the existence of dinosaurs, to how old the earth is. intelligent people can resolve these things very easily and be both religious and also understand that the earth is billions of years old... not a thousands. but obviously this view that religious people are not bright is obviously undeserved and it's not even my main point so i'll just move on.
the other big thing is of course the history of slavery and racism in the south. this one bewilders me, because honestly, there's been slavery and racism basically all over this country.
for some reason though it has become a black a eye for the south and not as much for the rest of the country.
of course a lot of this has to with the civil war in which northerners got a chance to basically make amends for their sins by fighting against slavery while the south basically fought to keep it.
still though i don't really think that is the over arching reason as to why the history of slavery remains a black eye to the south to this day.
i think the reason this perception still exists today that the south is racist, (and mind you it is just a perception. i've seen multiple studies that have shown that often the deep south can have some of the least racist communities in this country) is because of how they've moved on from the civil war.
to me so many southerners have been unable to resolve their pride for the south and the fact that the war was fought over slavery. in fact i'm sure people will respond to this very post telling me the war wasn't about slavery it was about state's rights etc. but the simple fact is that there is no debate, the civil war was about a lot of things but it was primarily about slavery. end of story.
but for some reason southerners just can't grapple with this fact and instead often resist it. argue it. defend their reasons for war. in the end it looks like poor excuses. most of the south remains unapologetic about the civil war and thus they have yet to be forgiven, by others and by themselves as well.
i often compare the situation with the situation in germany after ww2. not because the south was anything like nazi germany. get real. they weren't committing genocide or anything near as awful as that. but despite the fact that what the germans did during ww2 was so awful, the germans are basically totally forgiven today by the world at large and by jews themselves. not only that but i don't feel like the people of germany struggle with it so much any more... they have for the most part made peace with this awful part of their history, recognized it as such and moved on.
but Germany was able to move on because after the war they took responsibility and tried with their every subsequent action to their best to make amends.
i'm not saying the south owes anyone an apology or anything like that, i mean lets not be ridiculous. but by continuing to defend a fight for slavery 150 years later by making up excuses and whatever it creates the perception that they have no accountability. instead of moving on, they keep arguing with people over why they fought the war instead of just moving on.
i feel like they keep fighting over why they fought the war because a lot of southerners can't feel proud about the south if they look at what actually happened in the civil war. to them their southern pride is a constant fight. a constant "i don't care what you northerners say, i love the south!"
but it just doesn't have to be like that. Loving the south doesn't have to be a defiant act. Understanding your history even it's black eyes doesn't mean you still can't have pride in your heritage for all the good you accomplished.
southerners often are quick to remind that the north had slaves and the north has racism too. but the thing is in the north people don't refute this. they understand it, it's obviously not a good thing, but we've accepted it and attempted to move on.
so many southerners just can't move on.
those that have accepted that the civil war was about slavery have made the glorious discovery that they can accept this as truth and still feel proud about the south.
to me so many southerners have been unable to resolve their pride for the south and the fact that the war was fought over slavery. in fact i'm sure people will respond to this very post telling me the war wasn't about slavery it was about state's rights etc. but the simple fact is that there is no debate, the civil war was about a lot of things but it was primarily about slavery. end of story.
Exactly, and I do think a formal apology from southern states for being pro-slavery during the Civil War is in order, if it already hasn't been given. Just get it over with and move on.
Exactly, and I do think a formal apology from southern states for being pro-slavery during the Civil War is in order, if it already hasn't been given. Just get it over with and move on.
haha i wasn't advocating an apology from the south.
but yea i do think moving on is in order. it would certainly be best for them.
I think some of your points are pretty accurate about the economy...but I disagree with your assessment on the rivers. Sure, some of the East Coast rivers in the South aren't so big...but what about the Mississippi? New Orleans was a major port at the time, and one of the largest cities in America at the time of the war...that was no coincidence. Let's not forget that a number of naval battles during the Civil War were fought not just in the ports and bays along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, but on the Mississippi and Tennessee Rivers, as well.
Feeding off of the Mississippi is the Ohio (like you mention for Pittsburgh). It just so happens that two of the main tributaries of the Ohio are the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Both are sizable rivers and allowed for river port trading. Nashville was already an established river port at the time, and Memphis later became a very important inland port for the South.
Other than that, I think some of your points are very valid. The climate for the South was much more suitable for growing crops than it was in the North...hence the early dominance of the agrarian society and plantation farming. The divide between the industrial North and the agrarian South was one of the major causes of the Civil War. Yes, slavery was an integral part of the cause as well, as the South's economy was dependent on it, and the abolition of slavery would ultimately "favor" the North's economy in the long run.
Aside from heavy industry, such as coal and iron (coal would later become a much larger industry in the poor Appalachian region of the South), the textile industry flourished after the Civil War. There were quite a number of textile mills built in Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina during that time. In fact, the period after the Civil War resulted in quite a boom in industry. Since the economy could no longer depend on slave labor in the fields, a lot of focus shifted to industry. Despite the blow to the Southern agricultural economy, cities in the South boomed in the Reconstruction Era.
I didn't even know Nashville was a river port. When I think of river ports, I think of New Orleans and Memphis.
The South did eventually industrialize in many places. It happened later than in many places. Pittsburgh had been producing iron since before the Bessemer process was invented(around the 1850s). Birmingham, however, didn't even exist as a city until 1871, and only because coal, iron ore, and limestone were found nearby.
Cities in the South boomed during Reconstruction because of investment in cotton mills. Cotton mills were big up North before Reconstruction. Now they were in the South.
I would say part of it is a resistance to change. The Deep South depended on agriculture for so long that there was little room for anything else. It not just any kind of agriculture, but a feudalistic form of it. Slaves don't get paid, so there was no incentive to industrialize for many people.
In the North, industrialization was a necessity. There was more money in industrialization then in farming.
Back to PGH vs Bham. Both make steel, but you need to have a market for it. Pittsburgh had NYC nearby for a steel market, as well as Philadelphia, Cleveland, and this is why. Skyscrapers in New York were being built to epic proportions. Philadelphia was doing its thing too. The hyper-industrialization of the aformentioned cities helped Pittsburgh to have a market for steel, and these cities weren't that far away. After the automobile industry started to take off, a bigger market.
Birmingham, on the other hand, didn't have big cities nearby to use as a market. Once you dipped below the Mason-Dixon line, no more mega cities. Another thing is that the majority of automobile plants were in the Michigan/Indiana/Ohio corridor. Very few of them were in the South.
What brought more industry to the South later on after WWII was the relatively weaker presence of union labor and lower wages.
I didn't even know Nashville was a river port. When I think of river ports, I think of New Orleans and Memphis.
The South did eventually industrialize in many places. It happened later than in many places. Pittsburgh had been producing iron since before the Bessemer process was invented(around the 1850s). Birmingham, however, didn't even exist as a city until 1871, and only because coal, iron ore, and limestone were found nearby.
Cities in the South boomed during Reconstruction because of investment in cotton mills. Cotton mills were big up North before Reconstruction. Now they were in the South.
I would say part of it is a resistance to change. The Deep South depended on agriculture for so long that there was little room for anything else. It not just any kind of agriculture, but a feudalistic form of it. Slaves don't get paid, so there was no incentive to industrialize for many people.
In the North, industrialization was a necessity. There was more money in industrialization then in farming.
Back to PGH vs Bham. Both make steel, but you need to have a market for it. Pittsburgh had NYC nearby for a steel market, as well as Philadelphia, Cleveland, and this is why. Skyscrapers in New York were being built to epic proportions. Philadelphia was doing its thing too. The hyper-industrialization of the aformentioned cities helped Pittsburgh to have a market for steel, and these cities weren't that far away. After the automobile industry started to take off, a bigger market.
Birmingham, on the other hand, didn't have big cities nearby to use as a market. Once you dipped below the Mason-Dixon line, no more mega cities. Another thing is that the majority of automobile plants were in the Michigan/Indiana/Ohio corridor. Very few of them were in the South.
What brought more industry to the South later on after WWII was the relatively weaker presence of union labor and lower wages.
Nashville was an important river port and railroad hub for the South during the Civil War. Obviously the Cumberland isn't the first river you think of in the South, but it is a navigable river and has had 200 years of history for river commerce.
Of course, around the time of the war, and definitely into the 20th century, Memphis leaped past Nashville as far as importance as a river city, so that's why you think of them first (and the fact that the Mississippi River is the largest river in the country).
As for the bold, I pretty much agree with that. The slave based agriculture economy was part of the culture...changing that would have meant changing the culture for some. The idea was that the South and North did things differently, I guess.
The population of the North and the amount of it concentrated in cities also helped in the industrial process early on.
The 10 largest cities in the Union in 1860:
New York - 814,000
Philadelphia - 566,000
Brooklyn - 267,000
Baltimore - 212,000
Boston - 178,000
Cincinnati - 161,000
St. Louis - 161,000
Chicago - 112,000
Buffalo - 81,000
Newark - 72,000
as opposed to the 10 largest cities in the Confederacy in 1860:
New Orleans - 169,000
Charleston - 41,000
Richmond - 38,000
Mobile - 29,000
Memphis - 23,000
Savannah - 22,000
Petersburg - 18,000
Nashville - 17,000
Norfolk - 15,000
Augusta - 12,000
It's not surprising at all that the South wasn't nearly as industrialized...it couldn't be. It hasn't been until much more recently that the population has shifted southward. At the time of the war, the Union had nearly 2.5x the population of the Confederacy. More people = greater ability to industrialize.
Another thing to look at is not only the climate, but the lay of the land. New York City has become a great port because of its hinterland. You could sail a ship from NYC to Buffalo and then onward to Chicago and Duluth. You had farming and Buffalo was an important place for processing grain. You could ship things in and out of the hinterland. Boston, Baltimore and Philadelphia, not so much. However, with northern cities like Philadelphia, they were major industrial centers, so this allowed for immigration. Pittsburgh, was a perfect place for the steel industry to be. Three rivers(for which the namesake of the former Three Rivers Stadium came from). Coal and iron ore were right there. The water transportation was available so you could send ships with steel downriver, as far south as New Orleans.
In the South, this is how it worked. The dependence on agriculture made little room for other industries. The South was basically an agrarian society. Ports live Savannah, Charleston, New Orleans, and Mobile may have been decent ports, but there were some issues. Ordinarily, their locations might be of little problem up north. However, the lack of rivers going far inland presented a problem. The subtropical climate and lack of glaciers being there beforehand meant rivers were more shallow. Heat and longer summers meant more evaporations hence shallower rivers, and this is especially the case for the Savannah river.
Geography is probably why the majority of immigrants who moved to the South were in the port cities
Birmingham "Pittsburgh of the South", just didn't have a big market for steel. Pittsburgh had a market for it in the North.
With lack of use for cash crops, one has to turn to other things. Pennsylvania had plenty of coal and iron ore. So did Alabama. Alabama never found this out until way after.
I would say that lack of industries combined with people being enslaved made very little room for immigration. Since African-Americans were enslaved, they didn't get paid and therefore, immigrants couldn't compete for jobs in the South, specifically farm jobs. For this reason, immigrants went north.
Another aspect related to development was the railroads after the canals and waterways. Today many sunbelt cities are exploding because of the large highway infrastructure - people foolw the jobs and with the momentum of jobs to the better highwayed Sunbelt cities the popultion momentum has significantly shifted.
This is a gross generalization but it makes you think what will be the next driver and what areas will see the largest growth benefit from this
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
