–“There are no solutions only trade-offs”–
This is the first principle social, political and economic measurement: accounting for the difference between choices and full accounting of both the seen and unseen in those choices.
Regarding: —“So enslaved people just just suffer for an (at the time) unknown number of years waiting for a natural process?”–
Was the trade off of six hundred thousand dead, the terror of that horrific war, the near destruction of southern (scotts irish) civilization, and the century of consequences, including the current race-marxist division fomenteed by the neoMarxists not worth the less than thirty years of continued enslavement by a three million slaves?
Worse, was it worth not borrowing the money to pay off the landholders for their slaves (which was considered)?
Was it worse than paying off the landholders for their slaves and repatriating those slaves back to africa? (which was the optimum solution).
THE ECONOMIES OF THE NORTH VS SOUTH
–“The American economy was caught in transition on the eve of the Civil War. What had been an almost purely agricultural economy in 1800 was in the first stages of an industrial revolution which would result in the United States becoming one of the world’s leading industrial powers by 1900. But the beginnings of the industrial revolution in the prewar years was almost exclusively limited to the regions north of the Mason-Dixon line, leaving much of the South far behind.
In 1860, the South was still predominantly agricultural, highly dependent upon the sale of staples to a world market. By 1815, cotton was the most valuable export in the United States; by 1840, it was worth more than all other exports combined. But while the southern states produced two-thirds of the world’s supply of cotton, the South had little manufacturing capability, about 29 percent of the railroad tracks, and only 13 percent of the nation’s banks. The South did experiment with using slave labor in manufacturing, but for the most part it was well satisfied with its agricultural economy.
The North, by contrast, was well on its way toward a commercial and manufacturing economy, which would have a direct impact on its war making ability. By 1860, 90 percent of the nation’s manufacturing output came from northern states. The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms. The North produced 3,200 firearms to every 100 produced in the South. Only about 40 percent of the Northern population was still engaged in agriculture by 1860, as compared to 84 percent of the South.
Even in the agricultural sector, Northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas, as Southern agriculture remained labor intensive while northern agriculture became increasingly mechanized. By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation’s corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.
The industrialization of the northern states had an impact upon urbanization and immigration. By 1860, 26 percent of the Northern population lived in urban areas, led by the remarkable growth of cities such as Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Detroit, with their farm-machinery, food-processing, machine-tool, and railroad equipment factories. Only about a tenth of the southern population lived in urban areas.
Free states attracted the vast majority of the waves of European immigration through the mid-19th century. Fully seven-eighths of foreign immigrants settled in free states. As a consequence, the population of the states that stayed in the Union was approximately 23 million as compared to a population of 9 million in the states of the Confederacy. This translated directly into the Union having 3.5 million males of military age – 18 to 45 – as compared to 1 million for the South. About 75 percent of Southern males fought the war, as compared to about half of Northern men.
The Southern lag in industrial development did not result from any inherent economic disadvantages. There was great wealth in the South, but it was primarily tied up in the slave economy. In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation’s railroads, factories, and banks combined.”–
YOU”RE NOT MORAL IN IGNORANCE
So your moral virtue signaling is neither moral, nor virtuous, but profoundly ignorant and foolish
THE COST OF THE CIVIL WAR
The overall cost of the U.S. Civil War from 1861 to 1865 is complex and involves considering both direct and indirect costs, including economic, human, and societal impacts. The financial costs in terms of contemporary currency and today’s values can differ significantly.
Here’s an overview:
Direct Costs
Government Expenditures: This includes military expenses like salaries, weapons, equipment, and supplies. The Union government spent about $3.2 billion, and the Confederacy spent approximately $1 billion in 1860s dollars.
Economic Losses: The war caused significant destruction, particularly in the South, including infrastructure, agricultural, and property damage.
Human Costs
Casualties: The human cost was immense, with an estimated 620,000 soldiers dying from combat, accidents, starvation, and disease. This doesn’t include civilian casualties, which were also significant.
Veteran Care: Long-term costs for caring for the wounded and for veterans’ benefits.
Indirect Costs
Economic Disruption: The war disrupted trade, agriculture, and industry, especially in the Southern states, leading to economic losses beyond immediate war expenses.
Lost Labor and Productivity: The death of hundreds of thousands of men and the impact on civilian populations reduced economic productivity.
Adjusting for Inflation
Adjusting for inflation, the cost of the Civil War would be much higher in today’s dollars. Some estimates put the total cost well into the hundreds of billions or even trillions of current U.S. dollars, considering both direct expenditures and wider economic impacts.
Societal and Economic Repercussions
The war also had lasting societal and economic repercussions, particularly in the South, which faced years of rebuilding and economic hardship.
Conclusion
The overall cost of the U.S. Civil War is difficult to quantify precisely due to the vast range of direct and indirect factors involved. Financially, it was incredibly costly for both the Union and the Confederacy, and the human and societal costs were profound and long-lasting. The war not only shaped the future of the United States but also left an enduring legacy on its economic and social landscape.
In the end, it was an economic problem. The south would need to have their slaves paid for and repatriated and time to use those funds to industrialize and the north would not borrow the money via the central government to do so.
Which was the better choice?
Especially when agricultural employment was crashing hard and fast. (See attached)
MORE:
–“The worse problem is that this wasn’t really an issue and it was pointless, becuase slavery became economically unviable in the face of industrial farming within thirty years. So this is a great conflict in our history that was like the other progressive initiatives of the civil rights era the attempt to circumvent natural processes that were deterministic, in order to justify political activism by ‘do gooders’. Just like today.”– @curtdoolittle
Cheers
12:43 PM · Dec 28, 2023
·
591
Views
