You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #130: The North held between 75% and 90% of the nation's wealth, depending on the metric. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #89
130. The North held between 75% and 90% of the nation's wealth, depending on the metric.
The South was far more prosperous than it would have been without slavery, yes, but it was even then poorer than the North. It is true that American industry was nothing like it would be yet, but it was certainly not anything to trifle with. And during the war, the Northern dollar fell to 1/3 of its value against gold, while the Southern dollar fell to 1/12th and lower, so I'm not sure where "they had money and plenty of it" comes from. The South didn't manage to rack up many debts, true, but that's because they had neither trade nor industry, so there wasn't much opportunity to trade in debt. All the wealth they had was in the form of cotton, and frankly "King Cotton" didn't turn out to be much of a monarch. Neither Britain nor France nor Russia could be bribed with that stockpile for fear of losing their more valuable trade with the Union, and for fear of angering their public by backing a nation founded on slavery.

The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed a tactical decision, though not for the reasons you cited. The size of Southern garrisons didn't really change as a result of the Proclamation, and I can't think of a Southern general who ever halted an advance for fear of a slave rebellion. I mean, if Lee had retreated after Anteitam because of that, or Bragg after Murfreesboro, then I think there'd be a point, but both retreated because of tactical considerations, not because of strategic fear of slave revolts. However, the Emancipation Proclamation did galvanize a great deal of support for Lincoln among his own party, did suck all the wind out of the British confederate sympathizers, who nearly achieved recognition for the South beforehand, and did provide political cover for generals to (as they had been long requesting the authority to do) emancipate slaves in held areas, thus depriving the South of their productivity and asset value.

(Oh, and DE, MO, WV, and KY were also Union slave states)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC