Already familiar with the history, it seems odd for me to talk about the reasons why America was plunged into the Civil War in 1861. That said, as we approach this era in history, I'd like to take some posts to gather some thoughts and analyze how past movements in American history that we've already studied contributed to the outbreak of bloodshed. Throughout the week, I will be focusing on a different aspect for each day. Today, I will talk about economics.
~ Economics ~
Say I build a house and fill it with bonsai trees, telling you that no matter how to you do it, you must make sure that none of the bonsai trees die. Additionally, I want you to care for the bonsai trees so much that they outdo all competition -- I want my bonsai trees to be the best on the market. I then proceed to leave the house, telling you again that I do not care how you maintain the bonsai trees, so long as they lead to me maintaining a monopoly, because I want money, and you get a cut. Naturally, you cannot take care of every bonsai tree yourself, especially not with the care and attention that I've prescribed. You know you need to enlist people to help you, but no one does work for free by choice, and you want to make sure I make as much money as possible so that you can make as much money as possible. What do you do?
Replace the bonsai trees with cotton and the house with plantations, and our situation doesn't deviate much from the southern states' in the 1800s. Southerners (and most Americans, initially) exploited a seemingly lucrative opportunity that came to light, eclipsing rather serendipitously, with the explosion of labor requirements in the Indies and Americas: slavery. While, on the surface, the South's economy was based on cotton, it slowly evolved to become an economy based on slavery.
When talking about the breakout of the Civil War, we split North and South. Considering the economic disparities between the two regions, it seems only inevitable that some sort of conflict would break out eventually. The North had been quick to follow suit with European countries in industrialization; shifting their economy from remnants of its agrarian origin to focus more on manufacturing and factories. While, in the South, the economy stagnated on a slave-based economy. This was primarily rooted in circumstance: the North was burdened (or blessed, depending on who you ask) with absolutely dreadful weather conditions that were in no way conducive to maintaining an agricultural economy. The South, however, bordered on the tropic regions and was the perfect climate for the flourishing agricultural economy.
When you think about it, it seems almost impossible for a nation so inherently divided to stay a single unit. Countries strive to be economically diverse, not economically polarized. The issue with the economic situation leading to the outbreak of the Civil War was in part based on idealism: abolitionists thought that the South's successful economy was not reason enough to maintain an institution as dehumanizing as slavery; while southern states thought that the success of the economy was due only to the institution of slavery. The divide between North and South, though, does not only rest of slavery. Economically, a house of bonsai trees cannot share a house filled with heavy machinery. A country cannot have two separate economies if it hopes to be successful.
Economics, although not the primary factor, was then certainly one of the curses that drove the Union apart.
No comments:
Post a Comment