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.
It is interesting, isn't it? And opens up an entire new area of study. I'm going to have to do some research into the political situation in Canada 1850 through 1900 to get a clearer picture of what was happening there. Since my grandmother was from Quebec, there's a personal interest as well.
Canada was taken up with the Red River Rebellion in about 1869, and it's leader - Louis Riel -escaped to the U.S. where he lived in exile for many years. This might have proved a major bone of contention to any thoughts of union. Also, I think you will find that Canadians had been quite suspicous of U.S. designs on them...the Confederation of 1867 was in part, at least, prompted by this uneasiness. The Fenian incursions into Canada exacerbated an already negative situation.
My feeling is that the Confederation of Canada would have been very chary of even a chastened U.S.A.
The caption on the attached contemporary cartoon read:
Mother Britannia—"Take care, my child!"
Uncle Sam—"Oh! Never mind, if she falls, I'll catch her."
Canada was taken up with the Red River Rebellion in about 1869, and it's leader - Louis Riel -escaped to the U.S. where he lived in exile for many years. This might have proved a major bone of contention to any thoughts of union. Also, I think you will find that Canadians had been quite suspicous of U.S. designs on them...the Confederation of 1867 was in part, at least, prompted by this uneasiness. The Fenian incursions into Canada exacerbated an already negative situation.
My feeling is that the Confederation of Canada would have been very chary of even a chastened U.S.A.
The caption on the attached contemporary cartoon read:
Mother Britannia—"Take care, my child!"
Uncle Sam—"Oh! Never mind, if she falls, I'll catch her."
Thanks for the insights. I think Louis Riel sounds like an interesting character. And it always hovers in the back of my mind that I should learn more about Canadian history. Evidently my grandmother's family had come to Canada from France in the 1600's. The family history says that one of my French ancestors married a Blackfoot woman, but who knows? I know that my grandmother's family had a farm in the Three Rivers area, and that my great-grandfather was a railroad executive. All the children received private educations, and each year my great-grandfather took the family to New York City for a shopping expedition. My great-grandmother was quite tall and very elegant. I know this for sure, since her fur coats were left to my grandmother, who peaked in height at about 4'9" and looked ridiculous in full-length fur coats, especially ones custom made for a great-grandmother who was about a foot taller.
The remaining states would probably be better off actually---none of the social problems caused by the migration of southerners to the north, higher wages and better working conditions because of no need to compete with cheap and servile southern labor. The United States would've been free to progress along European social lines, better wages, pensions and health care, without the resistance of reactionary southerners.
The south has pretty much been a drag on the more progressive parts of the nation and taken an inordinate amount of Federal funding to boot. Why those people down there would have to drive all the way to Michigan to find a lake to put their bass boats in if it weren't for the Federal government. And they'd be reading by candle light without the TVA and Federal rural electrifcation. Those had learned to read anyway. Somehow I think that education of the common folk wouldn't have been real high on the Confederate elite's list of things to do.
Absolute nonsense. As already mentioned cotton was king back then and and very little of the government revenue was spent in the South even though the South was producing most of that revenue. Same thing today...look where the bulk of the bailout money goes,to AIG, GM, Chrysler, headquartered in the North. The North has always had such a poor work ethic it has to rely on assistance to survive. It's a black eye on America.....kinda like a mooching teenager that won't get a job and leave the nest.
There is a reason why the Southern states consistently opposed tariffs, and the Northern states supported them, at a time when tariffs were the primary source of income for the federal government, and at a time when the federal government was supporting infrastructure projects in the NORTH.
It's my understanding that before 1860 the federal government was involved in maintaining only the basic functions of the nation at large: the Army, the Navy, the relatively small federal beaurocracy and the administration of the territories.
DC at the Ridge, could you point out for me what infrastructure projects in the North were being funded by the federal government?
Ever heard of a little thing called the Transcontinental Railroad? Although it didn't happen before 1860, it was being planned and this was a big issue.
Ever heard of a little thing called the Transcontinental Railroad? Although it didn't happen before 1860, it was being planned and this was a big issue.
Wasn't the First Transcontinental Railroad built by the Central Pacific Railroad of California and the Union Pacific Railroad, both of which were private companies? And didn't it connect Omaha to California - can it really be called an example of northern infrastructure?
And seeing as how construction started in 1963, does it really serve as an example of federal funding derived from the Southern states payment of tariffs?
What opposition to roads and other internal improvements?
At the time of the Civil War, there certainly wasn't contempt for education, as the leadership of the South was very well-educated. And there wasn't contempt for industrialization, either. You might consider who was subsidizing whom at the time of the Civil War. While the industrial economy of the North was gaining traction, in part because of the urban population that is required for industrialization, there is a reason why the Southern states consistently opposed tariffs, and the Northern states supported them, at a time when tariffs were the primary source of income for the federal government, and at a time when the federal government was supporting infrastructure projects in the NORTH.
There wasn't contempt for industrialization, see Birmingham, AL, for example, but there wasn't a population base to support industrialization.
1) One of the central reasons given commonly by the south for the civil war was the use of federal funds for internal improvement. The southern constitution forbade national spending on these. Southern states did signficantly less, than and later, than northern states to develop internal improvements be that roads, railroads, electricty and what not.
2) The southern leadership made it clear both in their spoken statements and their actual policies that they had no use for industry, that they prefered an agrian society. One comment that has always stuck in my mind was the one that (as industry was forced on the south by the war) that it would be better to lose the war than have the south transformed into an industrial society.
3) Southern education lagged the North badly and that was not concidental. Opinion of these and investment in (at a point when the south was still fairly well to do) colleges and primary schools alike was much less in the south than the north.
That has not changed much. As someone who spent his entire life in the south, the very low regard education and academics is held in here is hard to miss. Football not learning excites the south. I suggest comparing spending on education in the south per capita and the NE.
People did not come to the south because they did not want to live in slave society and southerners were much more hostile to immigrants outside the British isles.
What would have happened if the south won the war??? The two most powerfull nations in North America would be Canada and the CSA. The remnants of the USA would have become The New england republic, England would have sided with the south, and claimed the midwest states for Canada (as it tried to do in 1812). This would have meant the Canadian border would be possibly all the way down to the Ohio river in the area west of the appalachian mountains, then stretching west all the way to California border. They would controll most of the great lakes, the northern half of the missisippi river, and much of the best cropland on the North American continent. The CSA would reach north to the Ohio, and west all the way to an independent California. New England and the northeast, having been deprived of a cheap food source and vast natural resources of the midwestern and western states would be weak and impoverished. In my opinion, this scenario is a possiblility if the south had won the war soundly, with a british intervention after a confederate victory at ghettysburg.
Wasn't the First Transcontinental Railroad built by the Central Pacific Railroad of California and the Union Pacific Railroad, both of which were private companies? And didn't it connect Omaha to California - can it really be called an example of northern infrastructure?
They were subsidized by federal funds. Also, the route was what the issues were about. Obviously, everyone wanted the route to benefit them.
Quote:
And seeing as how construction started in 1963, does it really serve as an example of federal funding derived from the Southern states payment of tariffs?
I think you meant 1863, right? Anyways, as I said, it didn't happen until after 1860, but it was in the planning stages for many years prior.
This argument would probably belong in a different thread anyway.
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.
