Economics Origins of the American Civil War

1 economics

1.1 economic value of slavery south
1.2 regional economic differences
1.3 free labor vs. pro-slavery arguments

economics

historians today agree economic conflicts not major cause of war. while economic basis sectional crisis popular among progressive school of historians 1910s 1940s, few professional historians subscribe explanation. according economic historian lee a. craig, in fact, numerous studies economic historians on past several decades reveal economic conflict not inherent condition of north-south relations during antebellum era , did not cause civil war.

when numerous groups tried @ last minute in 1860–61 find compromise avert war, did not turn economic policies. 3 major attempts @ compromise, crittenden compromise, corwin amendment , washington peace conference, addressed slavery-related issues of fugitive slave laws, personal liberty laws, slavery in territories , interference slavery within existing slave states.

economic value of slavery south

historian james l. huston emphasizes role of slavery economic institution. in october 1860 william lowndes yancey, leading advocate of secession, placed value of southern-held slaves @ $2.8 billion. huston writes:

understanding relations between wealth, slavery, , property rights in south provides powerful means of understanding southern political behavior leading disunion. first, size dimensions of slavery important comprehend, slavery colossal institution. second, property rights argument ultimate defense of slavery, , white southerners , proslavery radicals knew it. third, weak point in protection of slavery property rights federal government.... fourth, intense need preserve sanctity of property rights in africans led southern political leaders demand nationalization of slavery– condition under slaveholders protected in property holdings.

the cotton gin increased efficiency cotton harvested, contributing consolidation of king cotton backbone of economy of deep south, , entrenchment of system of slave labor on cotton plantation economy depended. chance south industrialize over.

the tendency of monoculture cotton plantings lead soil exhaustion created need cotton planters move operations new lands, , therefore westward expansion of slavery eastern seaboard new areas (e.g., alabama, mississippi, , beyond east texas).

regional economic differences

an animation showing free/slave status of u.s. states , territories, 1789–1861.

the south, midwest, , northeast had quite different economic structures. traded each other , each became more prosperous staying in union, point many businessmen made in 1860–61. charles a. beard in 1920s made highly influential argument effect these differences caused war (rather slavery or constitutional debates). saw industrial northeast forming coalition agrarian midwest against plantation south. critics challenged image of unified northeast , said region in fact highly diverse many different competing economic interests. in 1860–61, business interests in northeast opposed war.

after 1950, few mainstream historians accepted beard interpretation, though accepted libertarian economists. historian kenneth stampp—who abandoned beardianism after 1950, sums scholarly consensus: historians...now see no compelling reason why divergent economies of north , south should have led disunion , civil war; rather, find stronger practical reasons why sections, economies neatly complemented 1 another, should have found advantageous remain united.

free labor vs. pro-slavery arguments

historian eric foner argued free-labor ideology dominated thinking in north, emphasized economic opportunity. contrast, southerners described free labor greasy mechanics, filthy operators, small-fisted farmers, , moonstruck theorists . opposed homestead laws proposed give free farms in west, fearing small farmers oppose plantation slavery. indeed, opposition homestead laws far more common in secessionist rhetoric opposition tariffs.

southerners such calhoun argued slavery positive , , slaves more civilized , morally , intellectually improved because of slavery.