Southern Devotion to a System

¶ … Southern devotion to a system of slave labor retarded modernization in the South. Modernization in the South was hindered because, while the rest of the country was progressing, the South's economy could still utilize slaves. For example, in Virginia and Maryland, the profitable crop was cotton, which was "more suited to the use of slave labor" (Sutherland 26). After Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, the South "regarded slavery as an economic necessity" (27). Other factors came in to play as well. One was the fact that the South was losing part of its population due to Western expansion. As families moved away, the "drain would soon contribute to the further stagnation of the South's economy" (28-29). In addition, "subsistence farmers" (29) did not generate enough crops to sell on the open market, leading to cities and towns that were underdeveloped. Furthermore, while the slaves helped harvest crops and make money, the money went to their owners, resulting in a South that "could feed itself, but do little else" (29). While the industrial revolution was spreading across the country, it literally passed by the South. In 1860, 85% of the South's working population was slave labor in the fields and only ten percent of the South's population lived in large cities. In addition, because the South was primarily agricultural, it had to buy manufactured goods from the North. Another harmful factor in the South's inability to modernize was the hold that a few large plantation owners had on the economy. While others saw the looming danger, they had no control but the plantation owners had all the control and everything to lose. The south was not ready for the war and the war destroyed its economy. Because the South refused to embrace the future, it suffered greatly. When slaves were emancipated, suddenly the economy of each and every large plantation was impacted. Discipline "eroded rapidly as African-Americans, taking advantage of wartime conditions, began asserting control over their labor and, once Northern armies approached, ran away in large numbers" (Dalzell). According to Dalzell, it would not have mattered how slavery came to an end - it just needed to come to an end for the South to feel the error of it ways. With slave labor gone, the South simply had nothing to fall back on.

2. Could Abraham Lincoln have avoided an incident at Fort Sumter? Why or why not? Support your views with information from your reading. It is unlikely that Lincoln could have avoided an incident at Fort Sumter because the roots of the Civil War are complex. The roots of the Civil War can be traced back to the American Revolution and the "founding of the republic" (Davis 3). Between these two conflicts there was a "growing series of political conflicts between slave states and free states over what the national policy should be on issues affecting slavery" (3). The fierce debate over secession was already in motion and there is little that anyone could do to stop, or even slow, the pace of the oncoming war. It was inevitable because Lincoln came into it via the presidency. Not long after he took the oath of office, he had to ace the decision of Antietam. Lincoln would even say that he could not have avoided the battle at Fort Sumter for he was the one that coined the phrase "A country divided against itself cannot stand" (Lincoln qtd. In Davis). Fort Sumter had become a "symbol of federal power" (19) when other southern states had seized control of federal buildings. Lincoln was aware that Fort Sumter could be an "opening wedge to war" (20) but his primary concern was the people and the Union and with that in mind, he could not abandon Fort Sumter. The conditions for war were "right" and there is little that anyone could have done to avoid an incident at Fort Sumter. The war was not something that happened overnight. Instead, it occurred from a culmination of events. These events spread over years and nothing anyone could have done might have changed the air at the time. The country was experiencing growing pains of a sort. It was feeling the pull between two different forces that were ideologically opposed to one another trying to live next to each other. Like neighbors on any block, it was just a matter of time before things got out of control. The war was inevitable. Lincoln did the best that he could, given the circumstances.

3. Do you agree or disagree with Richard Current's thesis that Northern economic superiority sealed the South's fate in the Civil War? It is hard to deny that the North's economic advantage had nothing to do with the South's fate in the Civil War. One way to cope with gradually losing the war, the South realized that it must centralize its power. It was no secret that the South was at a sever disadvantage in regards to "industrial capacity, natural resources, and labor" (Norton 420). The North clearly had the upper hand. As already mentioned, the South was lagging when it came to progressing with the rest of the country. Before the war began, the South had not done much to develop any natural resources - especially in coal and iron - two elements necessary for war. Iron was especially limited after the war broke out that the Confederacy resorted to making appeals for metal in the form of farm or house equipment. Another advantage that the North had over the South was the fact that the South had little to no factories to produce the materials needed for war. On the other hand, the North had approximately 90% of the Union's industrial capacity. Another area where the North had superiority was food. In some ways, food is an even greater need than ammunition or arms because soldiers must eat and, after awhile, nothing will matter to them if they do not get the sustenance they need. If the climate produced a draught, for example, it would be felt first by the army. In fact, such a draught occurred, leaving the Confederate soldiers hungry. Farmers grew more grain and less cotton but there never seemed to be enough to keep up with the demand. One source of his problem was transportation. The South simply did not have the necessary means to transport the food to the soldiers on the field. Incidents such as food riots were not uncommon in areas where the pinch could be felt the most. The North's economy also benefited from the war in that many slaves wanted to move away from the South. "The supply of labor, already inadequate, shrank further as men were called into military service" (Olegario). There were many contributing factors that lead to the North's ultimate victory but the fact that they had a robust economy to begin with only strengthened their cause. The United States is driven by its economy and any type of government cannot survive without one. The South did not have a chance when it became clear that the North was not going to suffer economically like the South did. In fact, there was no way that the North could suffer as great as the South did economically because the North's economy already had momentum and was moving forward before the war. The sluggish Southern economy only became more sluggish - a hit from which they would never recover.

4. What impact did the battle of Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation have on the diplomatic struggle for European recognition of the fledgling Confederacy? The battle of Antietam had a significant impact on how the Confederacy was received because of timing.

Because the battle of Antietam was not a clear-cut victory, Lincoln used occasion as an opportunity to sign the Emancipation Proclamation to "carry the war to the higher moral plane of freeing the slaves" (Davis 166). This was perhaps one of the smartest moves Lincoln made because he was making something good come from out of something bad. He was also smart in that he was using every piece of ammunition he had to keep the Union together.

XXX Bailey agrees with this, adding, the Emancipation Proclamation was a tool Lincoln used to "sap a source of Confederacy's economic strength by providing an incentive for slaves to escape" (Bailey 157). He also wanted to forestall foreign intervention by appealing to world opinion. Lincoln saw the Emancipation Proclamation as a "means of achieving his overriding goal of wining the war and preserving the Union" (159). The news that Lee failed to uphold the invasion Antietam was "sufficient to discourage the British government from extending formal recognition of the Confederacy" (159).

Henry Palmerston, the Prime Minister at the time said, "We must continue to be lookers-on till the war shall have taken a more decided turn" (Palmerston qtd. In Bailey 159). It should be noted, however, that it was the "moral impact of emancipation that proved decisive in England and France" (Bailey 159). Both countries reallocated their favor toward the Union, which contributed to confederate dissolution.

The battle of Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation will forever be entwined because without the battle, emancipation might have looked very different. It was a case of perfect timing and making the most out of a bad situation and Lincoln should be commended for his ability to think about things clearly enough to see how these events could be played off of one another and used to his advantage.