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 think the northern mills would have simply looked at price and quality. India cottown still is the best in the world, thought its not cheap anymore. Then it was. They would have bought what cost them less. I don't even think it would have been 'personal' to not buy southern cotton, just financial.
The ultimate doom of the South from the start as it developed was that farming was largely based on non-food crops. Cotton, tabbacco and sugar were the primary money makers. Sugar is a food, of course but it was a treat then, not something you had to have for survival. Part of it was the quality of the land in some areas, but largely it was much higher profits were available from these crops. Thus the economy of the south was closely connected to the rise or fall of their price without a lot of alternatives.
Well, considering the financial aspect of getting cotton from India as oppose to the South, and then getting sugar and tobacco from elsewhere, that would have definitely spelled the South's doom. I have said that the South's doom would have come from its plantation economy being redundant. However, even with the boycott situation non-existent, this would have put things in a different perspective. The South would have been undersold by alot of other places. Sugar could come from Cuba and Jamaica. Cotton could come from India(or Britain, as it was a British colony at the time). The South would have plunged into a very deep depression.
Another thing to consider, is even if the South had switched to food stuffs, there are still some things to consider. Wheat cannot grow in most of the former Confederate states. It's too moist for wheat to grow. Only Texas would have pulled that off. Corn and other food stuffs could grow in the South. However, it is important to consider the amount of damage that was done to the soil because of the constant growth of cotton, without any regard to soil practices.
I would say Texas would have been the big economic engine. Texas has plenty of land, and different climates. It had large resources of cattle, so that would have helped. Wheat can grow in Texas, so that would have helped. Galveston and Corpus Christi might have grown to be much bigger ports. Texas might have provided food stuffs for Latin America, at least wheat. Cattle would have made Texas a major economic engine as well.
I would also argue that slavery might have continued until at least the late 19th century/early 20th century. One thing to consider is this. Brazil didn't get rid of slavery until 1888(same with Cuba).
Yes, it might have continued a little while longer after the war but would have died some time before 1888 because of farm machines coming in. I believe oil was discovered in PA in 1869 and steam power was here some time before that. Machines were much easier to maintain and didn't do inconvenient things like run off to greener pastures in the north so the south would def have gone that route.
Also, I think we wouldn't have seen the racism that we did b/c it seems that a lot of the racism stemmed from the resentment that the south had about being forced to free the slaves and the fact that they were left in humiliating poverty and needed to feel like they were better than somebody. OTOH, the north would might have taken that up but they could have recovered their economy quicker.
Interesting thoughts. Considering the vindictive system imposed on the South after it lost, if the war dragged on and the same need for revenge existed, I can well see a trade embargo imposed. Even before the end, southern agriculture had taken a major hit and they didn't have anything else. I could see Northern interests offereing a deal of cotton severly undersold which would create an ongoing condition of poverty but might have held off collapse. But the mills also depended on a steady, and dependable suppy of cotten, and if the fields and labor was disrupted, the south may not have been able to supply this. The English could, along with a very high quality product. They would have used one of the other and made a deal, not both. If the economy crumbled along with the fuedalized society, *slavery* would have died a natural death early.
I did think about the idea that vengeance could be a factor. After the Civil War ended, there were many who were angry at the South for its actions. Former President Andrew Johnson wanted to punish the top Confederates. He also wanted to get back at the planter class.
I did mention that the drop in demand for cotton would have meant an end to slavery. There would be no use for slavery because slavery was an economic issue, not a moral issue. Once cotton was rendered useless, slavery would have just ended.
Northern interests offering a low price deal for southern cotton might have lead to an eventual collapse, especially if the price of production outweighed the profit.
Quote:
But consider feudal Europe. They did NOT hold slaves, or not importantly. The major driving force was serfdom. You lived on the land with your family. You farmed strips for the Lord as partial rent, but also gave a portion of what you grew. The lord in the castle kept away the barbarians. It was for a a win win, until the barbarians were gone and the serfs remained. This is more likely what the south would have *quickly* fallen into as it did after reconstruction. Tenant farming is almost identical to serfdom without barbarians. In the modern world and even in the post war south, it was modified to the owner's advantage with credit from the store for those necessities you had to have. You were tied to the land until you could pay it off and you never would.
The South already went into a system like that. Sharecropping did take place after slavery ended. The same took place in Jamaica after the British Empire abolished slavery. The sharecropping system was basically a debtor system. To say such a feudal system would have taken place was quite an understatement, as it did happen.
Quote:
The mixed layer of black exslaves and white poor living under tenancy which did happen would likely have happened if by intention or accident there was no advantage to hold slaves as slaves. Tenancy also removed the need to take care of and feed babies and old people and sick people, since you got your cut of the crop even if they didn't get much at all.
It could have happened. It might have not. One thing to consider is that the system of slavery bred a kind of mentality of "Whites on the top, Blacks on the bottom". One thing I think about is how some Southern Democrats used race as a way to avert a power struggle. The planter class didn't really care about the poor White population. However, those who had power used it to foster a racial hierarchy.
Yes, it might have continued a little while longer after the war but would have died some time before 1888 because of farm machines coming in. I believe oil was discovered in PA in 1869 and steam power was here some time before that. Machines were much easier to maintain and didn't do inconvenient things like run off to greener pastures in the north so the south would def have gone that route.
Also, I think we wouldn't have seen the racism that we did b/c it seems that a lot of the racism stemmed from the resentment that the south had about being forced to free the slaves and the fact that they were left in humiliating poverty and needed to feel like they were better than somebody. OTOH, the north would might have taken that up but they could have recovered their economy quicker.
I looked to Brazil because left to itself, it didn't end slavery until later. However, I later considered that the USA would have gotten cotton from India instead, making southern-grown cotton redundant. That is one thing I never considered.
Being the descendant of former slaves, I tend to look at this from a more personal note. I don't think race relations would have become much better. One thing to consider was that the idea of "Whites on top, Blacks on the bottom" racial hierarchy existed because of slavery.
I did think about the idea that vengeance could be a factor. After the Civil War ended, there were many who were angry at the South for its actions. Former President Andrew Johnson wanted to punish the top Confederates. He also wanted to get back at the planter class.
I did mention that the drop in demand for cotton would have meant an end to slavery. There would be no use for slavery because slavery was an economic issue, not a moral issue. Once cotton was rendered useless, slavery would have just ended.
Northern interests offering a low price deal for southern cotton might have lead to an eventual collapse, especially if the price of production outweighed the profit.
The South already went into a system like that. Sharecropping did take place after slavery ended. The same took place in Jamaica after the British Empire abolished slavery. The sharecropping system was basically a debtor system. To say such a feudal system would have taken place was quite an understatement, as it did happen.
It could have happened. It might have not. One thing to consider is that the system of slavery bred a kind of mentality of "Whites on the top, Blacks on the bottom". One thing I think about is how some Southern Democrats used race as a way to avert a power struggle. The planter class didn't really care about the poor White population. However, those who had power used it to foster a racial hierarchy.
These things all have deep roots from the beginnings of settlement of the south. It was not settled for ordinary folks having their own. It was settled for profit. Land which was too marginal for food crops would have been used for cash crops, but by and large, aside from their own needs, land was used to make money. Tabacco and cotton and sugar paid better. Today its conventional wisdom that you rotate crops. Then it wasn't. The usual was to use up the land them move on for more. This is why it was so important for the south to be allowed to expand west. Their ultimate collapse was written in very early.
I think that resorting to sharecropping was inevitable. So long as the planters made lots of money they could afford slaves. But the way land was used and the limited economy meant that their run was going to end. When it did, something functional would replace it. Sharecropping in some form is found all over the world, in diverse cultures which shows its practicality.
That racial heirarchy started way back in the old world, where the poor and the unwanted were used as the goods on the ships who brought the unwanted to America so they could labor for the profit of the gentry. Sold upon arrival, using the indenture, first with the willing who were lied to and later emplyoying kidnapping and sweeps of the streets, a below caste of unfree white labor preceeded slavery as we tend to see it now. The reality is that it was slavery with a possible date of freedom, designed to extend the investment every means possible was used to extend that. The earliest blacks were purchased as 'servants' under the same rules. But those who survived (in the 1600's, less than half) were to get land. But the good land was taken and the marginal useless and by 1676 there was a large pool of dissatisfied former and present indentured, both black and white. The gentry was starting to think of themselves as such. They had no desire to give up good land to 'rabble'.
Nathanial Bacon became the leader of the dissatisfied in a violent rebellion which fell apart at his death, but before that nearly succeeded in removing the government of Virginia. Those in power wished it not to ever happen again, and found a way without losing much themsleves. This was the first real distinction between african labor and white labor in conditions and status. Before they'd largely recieved the same food, clothes, and done the same work side by side except for those with special skills. The europeans lot was slightly improved, and the African slighly made worse, differences which grew into lifelong slavery. But the ancestors of the planter class succeded in creating the racial divide which runs through American history since then. The reduction in price for Africans near the end of the century made it an even more useful tool. The bulk of the poor white survivors became the poor white 'rifraff' later.
The situation wasn't really any different in the 1800's. Southern states were dominated by an upper class with money. Those without were left to serve in some way. But if you are the riffraff that little edge mattered and allowed the ones with power to do as they chose. The planter class was simply continuing the same agenda and with the same result as worked in Bacon's days.
Following the civil war, most rural blacks were sharecroppers and most poor whites were the same, and all they had that was different was their whiteness, but that marginally sense of 'better' kept the lower half of society splintered apart. The people who made money still made money.
We all live in it's legacy.
Last edited by nightbird47; 03-30-2013 at 05:02 PM..
These things all have deep roots from the beginnings of settlement of the south. It was not settled for ordinary folks having their own. It was settled for profit. Land which was too marginal for food crops would have been used for cash crops, but by and large, aside from their own needs, land was used to make money. Tabacco and cotton and sugar paid better. Today its conventional wisdom that you rotate crops. Then it wasn't. The usual was to use up the land them move on for more. This is why it was so important for the south to be allowed to expand west. Their ultimate collapse was written in very early.
If it was known back then what we know now, perhaps things might have turned out a bit differently. It might have been so, and then again, maybe not. Cash crops are exactly that, CASH. As you said, people went after profits, relatively quick profits. Some people might have planted food crops.
Quote:
I think that resorting to sharecropping was inevitable. So long as the planters made lots of money they could afford slaves. But the way land was used and the limited economy meant that their run was going to end. When it did, something functional would replace it. Sharecropping in some form is found all over the world, in diverse cultures which shows its practicality.
This basically takes place in plantation societies, in societies where a few people a lion's share of the land. It's all about being profit and control.
Quote:
That racial heirarchy started way back in the old world, where the poor and the unwanted were used as the goods on the ships who brought the unwanted to America so they could labor for the profit of the gentry. Sold upon arrival, using the indenture, first with the willing who were lied to and later emplyoying kidnapping and sweeps of the streets, a below caste of unfree white labor preceeded slavery as we tend to see it now. The reality is that it was slavery with a possible date of freedom, designed to extend the investment every means possible was used to extend that. The earliest blacks were purchased as 'servants' under the same rules. But those who survived (in the 1600's, less than half) were to get land. But the good land was taken and the marginal useless and by 1676 there was a large pool of dissatisfied former and present indentured, both black and white. The gentry was starting to think of themselves as such. They had no desire to give up good land to 'rabble'.
Nathanial Bacon became the leader of the dissatisfied in a violent rebellion which fell apart at his death, but before that nearly succeeded in removing the government of Virginia. Those in power wished it not to ever happen again, and found a way without losing much themsleves. This was the first real distinction between african labor and white labor in conditions and status. Before they'd largely recieved the same food, clothes, and done the same work side by side except for those with special skills. The europeans lot was slightly improved, and the African slighly made worse, differences which grew into lifelong slavery. But the ancestors of the planter class succeded in creating the racial divide which runs through American history since then. The reduction in price for Africans near the end of the century made it an even more useful tool. The bulk of the poor white survivors became the poor white 'rifraff' later.
The situation wasn't really any different in the 1800's. Southern states were dominated by an upper class with money. Those without were left to serve in some way. But if you are the riffraff that little edge mattered and allowed the ones with power to do as they chose. The planter class was simply continuing the same agenda and with the same result as worked in Bacon's days.
Following the civil war, most rural blacks were sharecroppers and most poor whites were the same, and all they had that was different was their whiteness, but that marginally sense of 'better' kept the lower half of society splintered apart. The people who made money still made money.
We all live in it's legacy.
One thing that scared the elites in Virginia was the poor being united and knowing what they wanted. The roots of racism is economic. People become racists because they use slavery in the New World. Racism is perpetuated because it is about power and control over others. Money is considered power. Those who have the power want to keep it to themselves. Keeping people poor helps to prop up the powerful. Keeping people uneducated also does this. Slavery was about economics.
We would be a more conservative, God-fearing nation. Atlanta would be the nation's capital and Charleston would be the major Port of Entry. Jazz and Soul music would have dominated the nation alot sooner with brilliant musicians. There would be no political correctness; Blacks would not be known as African-Americans, but as Americans just like the Whites.
Sweet iced tea would be the national drink and barbeque would be a weekend culinary delight nationwide. College Football would become competitive in places like Vermont and Rhode Island. The sports media would be biased toward the Atlanta Braves as they are now with the New York Yankees. Coca-Cola would be what it is already, a southern concoction served world-wide.
Women would have a drawl like Rosalyn Carter. Manners and etiquette would be superior to that of today. You, yankee, would say hello when someone greets you with a hello, how are ya. There would be no unions and public schools would be the finest in the world. Manuafacturing would have remained in the USA with plenty of jobs to go around. NASCAR would have branched out far sooner.
There would have been more opportunity within the Black community, more success stories like Condaleeza Rice and Andrew Young. The military would have been mighty as it is now. Christianity and the story of Christmas would be respected and celebrated, moral values would be stronger as would the family. Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance would start the school day.
It would have been a beautiful country.
Manners and etiquette would likely improve. I assume that would also be the rule for all those very polite and well mannered NASCAR drivers who never have an altercation or argument on the track after a mishap. Aside from that, they would improve. Manners do need to improve. It used to be just the young that had lacked them. Nowadays all age groups need to improve.
BTW, I won't complain about good BBQ and I am a college football fan, too.
On a note of concern, how would the educational levels be? How about the nation's health? Would there be tolerance for dissenting viewpoints? These are just questions that some may have and it is fact there are a number of southern states that struggle educationally.
The USA (minus the crazy, bible thumping south) would be the top tier country in the world. More like Canada today without all the wacko southern politicians destroying the place.
What would happen??? well IMO the nation would be broken into more than 2 countries. Obviously we would have an independent Confederacy, but I dont think the entire north would have stayed united either. All the states on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers had strong economic ties to the south, they would have been forced to make some kind of deal with the Confederacy. Missouri and Kentucky surly would have officially joined the Confederacy. The British also likely would have aided the south after it became clear they had a real chance of winning, just as the French helped us win our independence. The British would have likely invaded the upper midwest as they did in the war of 1812. The states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota possibly could have been lost to the British and become part of Canada. This would also affect the development of the west after the war. The north would have little access and little ability to expand further west after this kind of loss. That leaves the Confederacy and the British to expand in the west. Also California being cut off from the Northeast may have chosen independence themselves forming a west coast nation. A loss which involved a British intervention would have destroyed the northeast, leaving them a small nation mostly confined to an area north of Maryland and east of the Appalachians. The real powerhouse of North America would be Canada, as they would possess the Great Lakes and northern Great Plains. Chicago would be Canadian, much of the agricultural output of North America would be Canadian, Detroits auto plants would be Canadian, the iron ore and copper of the Lake Superior country would be Canadian. North America would be a different world, Canada would be the dominant nation. The confederacy would have been a close second, but the remanent of the US goverment in the northeast would be a shaddow of its former self. The wealth and power of the northeast states has always been in part based on the wealth and production of other regions of the nation. Cut off from that they would be so much less than what they are today.
What would happen??? well IMO the nation would be broken into more than 2 countries. Obviously we would have an independent Confederacy, but I dont think the entire north would have stayed united either. All the states on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers had strong economic ties to the south, they would have been forced to make some kind of deal with the Confederacy. Missouri and Kentucky surly would have officially joined the Confederacy. The British also likely would have aided the south after it became clear they had a real chance of winning, just as the French helped us win our independence. The British would have likely invaded the upper midwest as they did in the war of 1812. The states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota possibly could have been lost to the British and become part of Canada. This would also affect the development of the west after the war. The north would have little access and little ability to expand further west after this kind of loss. That leaves the Confederacy and the British to expand in the west. Also California being cut off from the Northeast may have chosen independence themselves forming a west coast nation. A loss which involved a British intervention would have destroyed the northeast, leaving them a small nation mostly confined to an area north of Maryland and east of the Appalachians. The real powerhouse of North America would be Canada, as they would possess the Great Lakes and northern Great Plains. Chicago would be Canadian, much of the agricultural output of North America would be Canadian, Detroits auto plants would be Canadian, the iron ore and copper of the Lake Superior country would be Canadian. North America would be a different world, Canada would be the dominant nation. The confederacy would have been a close second, but the remanent of the US goverment in the northeast would be a shaddow of its former self. The wealth and power of the northeast states has always been in part based on the wealth and production of other regions of the nation. Cut off from that they would be so much less than what they are today.
I think a Pacific Republic centered on California and ranging to the crest of the Rockies is very plausible.
Your Canadian scenario, on the other hand, is much less so. "Canada" as it existed during the years of the American Civil War was a difficult and ultimately unworkable union of Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec). The other provinces (the Maritime provinces & B.C.) were separate self-governing colonies with no direct political connection to central Canada. Canada itself was largely self-governing, but its key leaders (George Brown, Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier, and above all Sir John A. MacDonald) were preoccupied with internal affairs; the last thing these men wanted was to annex troublesome Americans.
The Imperial government had its own preoccupations, and if MacDonald had wanted to meddle in the American mess, the Foreign & Colonial Office would have certainly doused his plans with cold water. And finally, maybe most importantly, there simply were no military forces available to carry out an annexation in the 1860s - the Canadian militia hardly existed, and imperial forces were little more than a token garrison. The only possible exception might have been the Oregon Territory (i.e. the future state of Washington) and Maine, where close economic ties with their northern neighbors might have produced a "reunion" movement.
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.
