Detailed Sources on the Economy of the North vs South in The Land Forces Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Detailed Sources on the Economy of the North vs South

Author	Comment
Kitsune	Detailed Sources on the Economy of the North vs South	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1390 Jul 13 11 5:00 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Curious, does anybody know good (and accessible) sources of the economies of the Union vs the Confederacy. If possible looking for something both before and during the Civil War and including manufacturing and other areas. Tigger appears to be lying again. . . .
	Remove this ad
ickysdad		#1	[-]
Posts: 5411 Jul 14 11 6:02 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Have you tried the census for the 1860's????
Kitsune		#2	[-]
Posts: 1390 Jul 14 11 6:13 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	One of his arguments is that all of the Union Industry was in New England and there was none in the Midwest. As well, He argued that the Confederacy was more industrialized than what I have read from most authors. Census just gives numbers of people and there were several pretty big Midwestern cities
ickysdad	trust me...	#3	[-]
Posts: 5411 Jul 14 11 8:27 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The census gives alot more then that such as manufactoring figures & such trust me on that. Also just what does it matter if industry isn't that widespread in the Mid-West???? Now one further point the CSA did do a real good job of increasing their output during the ACW but if they can do it then the Union can too. Last Edited By: ickysdad Jul 14 11 2:53 PM. Edited 1 times.
ickysdad	the census	#4	[-]
Posts: 5411 Jul 14 11 3:41 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ok from the 1870 census... 1. Of 3,726 firms cranking out Iron & iron products we have Illinois 133 ,Indiana 120, Iowa 44, Kansas 5 ,Kentucky 60, Michigan 217 , Minnesota 19, Missouri 60, Ohio 393 ,California 34, Nevada 5 and Wisconsin 81 for a total of (for the west of Pennsylvannia group) of 1,169 manufactorers. 2. In railroad repair facilities we have 58 of 150 in the western areas. 3. Per Iron stream engines/boilers and such there are 241 in this area of 663 total nationally. I'll also look at the 1860 census in this regards but IMHO these figures(the ones from 1870) will still be typical of what is was in 1860. Now most industry is concentrated in say the old North-East,especially New York & Pennsylvannia but the Mid-West/West is hardly without. http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1870.html Last Edited By: ickysdad Jul 14 11 5:43 PM. Edited 1 times.
borys68		#5	[-]
Posts: 4097 Jul 14 11 6:22 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Kitsune wrote: As well, He argued that the Confederacy was more industrialized than what I have read from most authors. FWIW - I remember reading, on another board, on one of the interminal ACW threads, that the CSA's lack of industry was relative. That taken alone, the CSA would be the 4th most industrialised country in the world, trailing the UK, US and Belgium .. Borys
MBecker01		#6	[-]
Posts: 2328 Jul 14 11 6:37 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"Battle Cry for Freedom" has some general info on how both sides financed the war and on the economy. The CSA had quite a bit of industry but IIRC a lot or most was in the upper south of the western states and it was lost almost immediately. With regard to railroads, the lines in the South were not as well linked as the ones in the North. Often they just ran to the next major river. I was even told they were using strap-rail. gulp
Kitsune		#7	[-]
Posts: 1390 Jul 14 11 9:50 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	FWIW - I remember reading, on another board, on one of the interminal ACW threads, that the CSA's lack of industry was relative. That taken alone, the CSA would be the 4th most industrialised country in the world, trailing the UK, US and Belgium .. Borys I don't think so. . .France was pretty industrialized and so was Prussia. I think some of what I have read lost a zero in the number as far as iron production. Still, I think using the 1860 Census data (I did not know it covered what it does), I can turn Tigger around (Turn him around does not mean he will agree but show that he is lying) As well, this is a basic what most scholars appear to agree with (and the Census data supports) The North had an enormous industrial advantage as well. At the beginning of the war, the Confederacy had only one-ninth the industrial capacity of the Union. But that statistic was misleading. In 1860, the North manufactured 97 percent of the country's firearms, 96 percent of its railroad locomotives, 94 percent of its cloth, 93 percent of its pig iron, and over 90 percent of its boots and shoes. The North had twice the density of railroads per square mile. There was not even one rifleworks in the entire South. http://www.ushistory.org/us/33b.asp Last Edited By: Kitsune Jul 14 11 9:55 PM. Edited 1 times.
emc		#8	[-]
Posts: 6741 Jul 14 11 11:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Of course, one of the largest factories in the South was the Federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry. There were many reasons why the South was not as industrialized as the North. One was simply that they were able to generate great amounts of wealth by the production of cash crops, and the goal of every white Southerner was to become a wealthy planter. In the Northeast, especially, farming was not a way to wealth, mostly as An interesting, and little mentioned, flaw in the Southern economy was that, while being less industrialized than the North, the ante-bellum South was also a net food importer, as it was more profitable to buy food (largely from the parts of the US that would not secede) than it was to take land away from the production of cash crops.
Dcnwilltex		#9	[-]
Posts: 2845 Jul 15 11 2:24 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's rather difficult to be an industrialized nation when you have no coal, and the only coal deposits the South had access to would have been Kentucky and West Virginia which were neutral states. Richmond, New Orleans, Charleston and Memphis would have been the main Industrial cities and they would have been 40 years behind in their Technological status. Industrial output was clearly 10:1 in the North's favor. The South had very small and insignificant rail-lines as compared to the North. I think I read somewhere where the North had a distinct advantage of 8:1 in rail ratio. The South's concept of mass transit was the riverboat. Also keep in mind most of the Southern States west of the Mississipi were barely populated with divided loyalties.
ickysdad	Actually ..	#10	[-]
Posts: 5411 Jul 15 11 4:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	According to "A History of The Confederate Navy" by Raimond Luraghi the South had an abundance of Live Oak & Pitch Pine to build ships with. Now per Iron Ore it was found in every Southern state except Louisiana,Mississippi and Florida. In 1860 the South produced about 1/6 of the country's iron ore BUT the greatest areas of production were in Kentucky,Tennessee & West Virginia with those areas rapidly falling into Union hands. This assessment also seems to put to lie Tigger's assertion that the NE produced almost all of the Unions output of raw materials or rather the Union would collapse for lack of resources if parts of the NE fell. However back to the CSA ,it was then up to deposits in Virginia,Georgia and Alabama to fill the void.Now in 1860 the South had 39 furnaces which produced 36.790 tons of cast iron bars however in perspective the Union produced 868,798 tons of iron bars to which one could also add 81,971 tons produced in Maryland,Missouri & Kentucky. The South's production was concentrated in Tenessee(17 furnaces ,22,302 tons) and Virginia(16 furnaces ,11,646 tons). Total production of wought Iron in the South in 1860 was 26,252 tons from 84 iron works & rolling mills . Now the North produced 451,369 tons to which one can add the threesome's of Maryland,Missouri & Kentucky for another 31,463 tons furthermore the North also gained another 5,144 tons when it overran Tennessee(35 plants) lucky for the CSA Virginia produced 17,889 tons in 20 plants. The CSA between 1862 & 1865 created 28 new furmaces in Alabama & Virginia. In rolling mills the CSA had Tredegar & Schofield & Markham in Atlanta and lastly Shelby Iron Company in Columbiana ,Alabama. In marine engines the South did have Tredegar(whiuch manage to build engines for 4 naval vessels),the Shockoe Manufactoring Company of Richmond, and the Columbus Naval Iron Works in Columbus,Georgia. Then there were a couple of smaller firms,i.e. Patterson Iron Works(New Orleans) & James M. Eason(Charleston) which turned out small quantities. The South's only copper mines were near Ducktown,Tennessee with two other very small sources in Virginia alongst with some in Arkansas & Arizona would certainly helped locally. Now as per lead the South had an abundant source near Wytheville,Virginia producing 1,591 tons during the war fully providing half the CSA's needs. Now the question of having coal has popped up here in this thread ,well the top producing Southern deposits in the states of Maryland,Kentucky,Missouri & Tennessee fell pretty quickly it was quite evident that Alabama & Virginia could pick up alot of the slack. In 1860 Virginia produced 895,000 tons(Clover Hill Basin) whilst Alabama added only about 20,000 tons yet the latter had very extensive deposits and eventually took first place.The South had enough coal BUT(and a very IMPORTANT BUT) the supply system just wasn't up to the task. The CSA navy had just 45 rolling stock to supply Schofield & Markham mill, the Columbus Naval Iron Mill and it's ships. A good example is Flag Officer Ingraham,in Charleston, not being able to get the neccessary 15 tons a day he needed for his squadron. The CSA navy managed to build or lay down 150 ships even though half weren't completed which is remarkable but then one realises the navy created some 20 new shipyards with 4 of those being naval,a rolling mill for producing armor plate,two plants for engines and boilers, a foundry for heavy & very heavy guns, a powderworks, and 3 artillery plants . Now from all of this I get two things... 1. If the South could do all of this as a matter of survival just what could the Union do in the same situation? 2. It seems to me the Tigger on the other forum is wrong about the West not being very industrialised when one just looks at the output of the mills/furnaces/foundries in the Upper South. Last Edited By: ickysdad Jul 15 11 4:33 AM. Edited 2 times.
	Remove this ad
Kitsune		#11	[-]
Posts: 1390 Jul 15 11 5:28 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	He went further to state almost all of Northern Industry was in New England, ignoring all of the "Mid" states.
ickysdad	The census	#12	[-]
Posts: 5411 Jul 15 11 8:00 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well the majority of it is in the NE.I use NE becauseI don't consider Pennsylvannia & New York to be New England. New England to me is Massachusetts,Rhode Island,Connecticut, Vermont,New Hampshire and Maine. If you just link to the 1860 or 1870 Census anybody doing decent research will see he's wrong.
Kitsune		#13	[-]
Posts: 1390 Jul 15 11 9:12 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	This is what I argued. . . I have to indirectly thank "An Ancient" and "67th Tiger" Not that they know what they are talking about but arguing with them causes me to need to research to refute them. Of course it does not mean that either one of them are not idiots. . . . Tigger stated: That isn't true. The south indeed was industrialising at a fair pace. Northern industrialisation at the time was confined mainly to New England. Minnesota, Indiana or Ohio were less industrialised than a typical southern state. Now. looking at the information from the US Census from 1860. I am waiting for "An Ancient" now to argue that secondary source are better than primary sources but it will just make you look stupid. I am stating that 67th Tiger just making %$*% up. Indiana had 5,323 manufacturing facilities with 21,000 employees and 42,800,000 in Annual Production Ohio had 11,123 manufacturing facilities with 75,000 employees and 121,700,000 in Annual Production Compare this to Virginia (By far the largest number of manufacturing facilities in the South) which had 5,385 facilities with 36,200 employees and 50,650 in Annual Production. No other Confederate State had over 1,800 facilities. Comparing the whole region, The Western States (Does not include Pacific States - they are separate) had 36,785 manufacturing facilities with 210,000 employees and 384,600,000 in Annual Production. There was also 76 facilities making pig iron and 223 facilities making iron castings. The Southern States had 20,631 manufacturing facilities with 110,000 employees and 155,500,000 in Annual Production. They had 39 facilities making pig iron and 96 facilities making iron castings. As we can see, clearly even the Western States are more industrialized than the South. Tigger also stated: Also, it's worth noting that the 13 Confederate States had about half of grain production (not wheat, grain, it's mainly corn down south), 2/3rds of the pigs, 3/4ths the peas and beans, 5/6ths of the potatoes, 5/6ths of the tobacco and virtually all the cotton, sugar and rice. They had about 1/3rd of the heavy industry, but a much smaller slice of the light industry. They also had about 40% of the rail stock. Of course they had issues, barley and hops didn't grow down south so the North takes all the beer. The same for cheese and southern sheep herds produced little wool (for the obvious reasons). As we have already seen, just the Western States have about twice the heavy industries as the South. As such, your argument of the South States having 1/3 of heavy industries is wrong. I also downloaded the agricultural part of the 1860 Census I went through Swine in every state Swine Numbers Confederate States State Total Swine Alabama 1,748,321 Arkansas 1,171,630 Florida 271,742 Georgia 2,036,116 Louisiana 631,525 Mississippi 1,592,768 North Carolina 1,883,214 South Carolina 965,779 Tennessee 2,347,321 Texas 1,371,532 Virginia 1,599,919 Total 15,619,867 Percentage of National 46.48% Union States State Total Swine California 456,396 Connecticut 75,120 Delaware 47,848 Illinois 2,592,308 Indiana 3,099,110 Iowa 934,820 Kansas 138,224 Kentucky 2,330,595 Maine 54,783 Maryland 387,756 Massachusetts 73,948 Michigan 372,386 Minnesota 101,371 Missouri 2,354,425 New Hampshire 51,935 New Jersey 236,080 New York 910,178 Ohio 2,251,653 Oregon 81,615 Pennsylvania 1,031,266 Rhode Island 17,478 Vermont 52,912 Wisconsin 334,055 Total 17,986,262 Percentage of National 53.52% You stated 2/3 of pigs were in the Confederacy and the numbers simply show that you are wrong. . .It is less than half. This was something I might have let pass, because it was not an unbelievable claim, but just decided to check. As usual, I find you made up numbers. Just some quick looking, it looks like potatoes are also grown in larger numbers in the Union states and suspect that you statement about beans and peas is also highly questionable.
emc		#14	[-]
Posts: 6741 Jul 15 11 2:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Dcnwilltex wrote: It's rather difficult to be an industrialized nation when you have no coal, and the only coal deposits the South had access to would have been Kentucky and West Virginia which were neutral states. Richmond, New Orleans, Charleston and Memphis would have been the main Industrial cities and they would have been 40 years behind in their Technological status. Industrial output was clearly 10:1 in the North's favor. The South had very small and insignificant rail-lines as compared to the North. I think I read somewhere where the North had a distinct advantage of 8:1 in rail ratio. The South's concept of mass transit was the riverboat. Also keep in mind most of the Southern States west of the Mississipi were barely populated with divided loyalties. All of the Southern states had divided loyalties: every Southern state, except possibly South Carolina, had volunteer regiments fighting for the Union. Obviously, West Virginians were not terribly enamored with the decision made by Richmond to secede, which is why they seceded from Virginia. Do remember that some of the Southern states, most notably South Carolina, had set up their political systems so that the wealthy planters (usually on the coasts) were significantly over-represented in government. I'm not referring to Black suffrage -- this is something in which the North was no better than the South -- but various forms of gerrymandering to make sure that the votes of small property holders, who were more prevalent in the upland and mountainous areas, were under-represented.
Dcnwilltex		#15	[-]
Posts: 2845 Jul 15 11 7:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	This assessment also seems to put to lie Tigger's assertion that the NE produced almost all of the Unions output of raw materials or rather the Union would collapse for lack of resources if parts of the NE fell. However back to the CSA ,it was then up to deposits in Virginia,Georgia and Alabama to fill the void.Now in 1860 the South had 39 furnaces which produced 36.790 tons of cast iron bars however in perspective the Union produced 868,798 tons of iron bars to which one could also add 81,971 tons produced in Maryland,Missouri & Kentucky. The South's production was concentrated in Tenessee(17 furnaces ,22,302 tons) and Virginia(16 furnaces ,11,646 tons). Total production of wought Iron in the South in 1860 was 26,252 tons from 84 iron works & rolling mills . Now the North produced 451,369 tons to which one can add the threesome's of Maryland,Missouri & Kentucky for another 31,463 tons furthermore the North also gained another 5,144 tons when it overran Tennessee(35 plants) lucky for the CSA Virginia produced 17,889 tons in 20 plants. The CSA between 1862 & 1865 created 28 new furmaces in Alabama & Virginia. Having the natural resources is not going to be of any use when you have no means of extracting it. Dalonega, Georgia had a mining operation, but that was comparativly miniscule to the rest of the nation- the miners had all but deserted it and headed to California the previous decade. You can create furnaces, but they did not have the manpower, and trained manpower would have been rarer than chicken teeth. The furnaces that Alabama would have had would have been of very little use, since the Federal Navy blockaded Mobile Bay and the rail line would have been all but useless. The same applies to Georgia, everything would have to be transported via Riverboats, processed, manufactured, then shipped as finished products which would have been wasteful and expensive.
Dcnwilltex		#16	[-]
Posts: 2845 Jul 15 11 8:00 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	All of the Southern states had divided loyalties: every Southern state, except possibly South Carolina, had volunteer regiments fighting for the Union. Obviously, West Virginians were not terribly enamored with the decision made by Richmond to secede, which is why they seceded from Virginia. Do remember that some of the Southern states, most notably South Carolina, had set up their political systems so that the wealthy planters (usually on the coasts) were significantly over-represented in government. I'm not referring to Black suffrage -- this is something in which the North was no better than the South -- but various forms of gerrymandering to make sure that the votes of small property holders, who were more prevalent in the upland and mountainous areas, were under-represented. Good points, but that issue was about nullifying the Scot-Irish who were viewed as Appalachian trash not worthy of doing anything other than fighting Indians. The stereotypical Southerner lived in the lower farming lands, the white trash lived in the mountains, the Hillbillies tired of this arrangement and moved west through Tennessee, Arknasas and Texas.
Kitsune		#17	[-]
Posts: 1390 Jul 15 11 8:20 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thought I should post my agricultural comparison. . .Probably should eventually should add cattle, wheat, etc to the list as well
Dcnwilltex		#18	[-]
Posts: 2845 Jul 15 11 9:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Those numbers are somewhat misleading, Arkansas and Texas are supporting the Oklahoma Territories along with New Mexico and Colorado. The Neutral States (MO and Kansas) also received a lot of Arkansas Pork and Corn to feed the western expansion.
Kitsune		#19	[-]
Posts: 1390 Jul 15 11 9:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Do you have a good source that argues this and explains in detail? These are straight shot 1860 Census data as far as agriculture. Even if some swine cross boarders, they are raised for a number for years before being slaughter so I don't think it was skew it anymore than a few percentages The 1860 data seems pretty well supported being that the Union was able to export food overseas during the Civil War. If the Census data was "Confused", this likely would not be the case Last Edited By: Kitsune Jul 16 11 12:12 AM. Edited 2 times.
ickysdad	Oh I tend to agree...	#20	[-]
Posts: 5411 Jul 15 11 10:09 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Dcnwilltex wrote: This assessment also seems to put to lie Tigger's assertion that the NE produced almost all of the Unions output of raw materials or rather the Union would collapse for lack of resources if parts of the NE fell. However back to the CSA ,it was then up to deposits in Virginia,Georgia and Alabama to fill the void.Now in 1860 the South had 39 furnaces which produced 36.790 tons of cast iron bars however in perspective the Union produced 868,798 tons of iron bars to which one could also add 81,971 tons produced in Maryland,Missouri & Kentucky. The South's production was concentrated in Tenessee(17 furnaces ,22,302 tons) and Virginia(16 furnaces ,11,646 tons). Total production of wought Iron in the South in 1860 was 26,252 tons from 84 iron works & rolling mills . Now the North produced 451,369 tons to which one can add the threesome's of Maryland,Missouri & Kentucky for another 31,463 tons furthermore the North also gained another 5,144 tons when it overran Tennessee(35 plants) lucky for the CSA Virginia produced 17,889 tons in 20 plants. The CSA between 1862 & 1865 created 28 new furmaces in Alabama & Virginia. Having the natural resources is not going to be of any use when you have no means of extracting it. Dalonega, Georgia had a mining operation, but that was comparativly miniscule to the rest of the nation- the miners had all but deserted it and headed to California the previous decade. You can create furnaces, but they did not have the manpower, and trained manpower would have been rarer than chicken teeth. The furnaces that Alabama would have had would have been of very little use, since the Federal Navy blockaded Mobile Bay and the rail line would have been all but useless. The same applies to Georgia, everything would have to be transported via Riverboats, processed, manufactured, then shipped as finished products which would have been wasteful and expensive. Yes the main problem was lack of trained manpower/skilled labor and lack of transportation infrastructure. I wasn't trying denegate what you said earlier about no coal being in the South,there was coal there but as you've pointed out getting it to where they needed it is a totally different issue.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Detailed Sources on the Economy of the North vs South

Detailed Sources on the Economy of the North vs South