Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Economic political social consequences of the civil war
Economic and political issues after the civil war
Union and confederacy comparison contrast
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Confederation and the Union had variant economic statuses, the Union's being more stable than the South’s because of its successful sales of bonds, its more dependable form of wealth, and the fact that it was a preestablished country with wartime funding experience. Though the Union’s banking system was far from perfect, its superiority placed the Union ahead of the South financially. The Union developed a technique that boosted the sales of bonds, while the South gained very little from their sales. This was due to both the scarcity of cash in the South and the reluctance of the Southerners to invest in bonds. Insufficiencies in the South’s war funding tactics sparked a runaway inflation that topped 9,000 percent by 1865. Another inferiority of the South was the fact that its government was developing as the conflict ensued, whereas the North had the advantage of being a preexisting country with previous experience raising funds for other wars. This combined with both the Confederation’s size and non-liquid assets attributed to its economic downfall. The predominantly agrarian South had few forms of liquid wealth; slaves and land comprised the majority of southern capital. The cultivation of cotton and the profits made by its sales was paramount to the economy and so with the loss of northern buyers, the Confederate’s economic status was destined for failure. The poor economic state in which the Confederacy found itself definitely affected its success in the Civil War, and proved its inferiority as a developing country. First paragraph: The Union had less inflation problems because Its bonds worked better. a) bonds, who set them about, who had them first, It were the first american war bonds i)the Union raised a higher percentage of Its money from bonds than the South; the South simply inflated without species backing because it had a smaller, less industrial economy. Jay Cooke, the man designated by Salmon Chase to administer the sales of Union bonds, developed a technique in which he marketed bonds to not only the wealthy classes, but the middle classes as well, encouraging them to contribute to the war effort by purchasing bonds. This tactic raised $3 billion for the Union. The Confederacy’s attempt to raise war funds with bonds failed primarily because few Southerners had enough cash; as previously stated, liquid wealth in the South was fairly scarce. Another reason for the Southerner’s reluctance was inflation.
The North entered the Civil War with many distinct assets that rendered them more competent than the Southern states. Those assets consisted of having more men, more financial stability, economic strength, and far reaching transportation systems. According to the book: Why the North Won the Civil War by Donald, David Herbert, and Richard Nelson the primary cause to the North’s success was given by, “the vast superiority of the North in men and materials, in instruments of production, in communication facilities, in business organization and skill – and assuming for the sake of the argument no more than rough quality in statecraft and generalship – the final outcome seems all but inevitable.” In many ways the north, during the Civil, was more economically dominant than the South
An even greater advantage of the North was its industrial development. The states that joined the Confederacy produced just seven percent of the nation’s manufactures on the eve of the war. What made the disparity even greater was that little of this was in heavy industry. The only iron foundry of any size in the Confederacy was the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, which had long supplied the United States Army. Tr...
The economies of the North and South were vastly different leading up to the Civil War. Money was equivalent to power in both regions. For the North, the economy was based on industry as they were more modern and self-aware. They realized that industrialization was progress and it could help rid the country of slave labor as it was wrong. The North’s population had a class system but citizens could move within the system, provided they made the money that would allow them to move up in class. The class system was not as rigid as it was in the South. By comparison, the South wanted to hold on to its economic policy. In doing so, the practice of slavery kept the social order firmly in place. The economic factors, social issues and a growing animosity between the two regions helped to induce the Civil War.
“The contrast in the relative prominence of slavery between the Upper South and the Lower South reflects the adverse health conditions and arduous labor requirements of lowland rice cultivation, whereas tobacco farming continued to be attractive to free family farmers as well as to slave owners”(Engerman, Sutch, & Wright, 2004). The lower South depended on their slaves more than the Upper because they were in the process of cropping tobacco. The Upper South had to keep up with the lower south, because they had to focus on their slave trade that would build and expand their plantations. During this era, the diverse between these two regions were more concerned with the values of slaves. The values of slave price can increase because of high demands between the upper and the lower South. As the upper South was coming up short, the slave profession took off. The slave profession helped the Upper South, yet there were numerous deformities. The slave percentage was at the end of its usefulness of significance “in the Upper South” significance it had a weaker understanding of community reliability than in the cotton areas. This made the upper south separate on what the future may hold. It was not clear on whether if the future was based on the Deep South’s financial growth between the North and the
...f wearing down the north's patience. The south's idea of northerns as "city slickers" who did not know how to ride or shoot was wrong. Many of the men who formed the Union forces came from rural backgrounds and were just as familiar with riding and shooting as their southern enemies. Finally, the south's confidence in its ability to fund through sales of export crops such as cotton did not take into consideration the northern blockade. France and Britain were not willing to become involved in a military conflict for the sake of something they had already stockpiled. The help the south had received from France and Britain turned out to be a lot less than they expected. In conclusion, while all the south's reasons for confidence were based on reality, they were too hopeful. The south's commitment to a cause was probably what caused their blindness to reality.
The decades leading up to the American Civil War showed a great divide in the economic, political, and regional attitudes between the North and South. These divisions still plague the country today. However, there is a divide on whether economic anxieties or political differences were the major factor in the run up to the Civil War.
Formed at the eve of the Civil War, the United States (USA) and the Confederate States (CSA) were created for multiple reasons. The main reason of the formation includes that of political issues and slavery issues. Other ideas include the military, economics, etc. The USA was led by President Abraham Lincoln and the CSA was led under President Jefferson Davis. The CSA included the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. The United States and Confederate States can be compared based on their advantages and viewpoints in the fields of how and why they were formed, the rights of the federal and state governments, views on slavery, economic issues, and the military strategies.
The Civil War that took place in the United States from 1861 to 1865 could have easily swung either way at several points during the conflict. There is however several reasons that the North would emerge victorious from this bloody war that pit brother against brother. Some of the main contributing factors are superior industrial capabilities, more efficient logistical support, greater naval power, and a largely lopsided population in favor of the Union. Also one of the advantages the Union had was that of an experienced government, an advantage that very well might have been one of the greatest contributing factors to their success. There are many reasons factors that lead to the North's victory, and each of these elements in and amongst themselves was extremely vital to the effectiveness of the Northern military forces. Had any one of these factors not been in place the outcome of the war could have been significantly different, and the United States as we know it today could be quite a different place to live.
Why the North Won the Civil War, edited by David Herbert Donald, is a short collection of six essays. Each essay argues from a different perspective as to why the Confederate States of America could not defeat the Union in the American Civil War. The factors considered for Confederate defeat include: economics, military strategy, diplomacy, ideology, and politics. In the end, the most convincing argument is given by Richard N. Current regarding economics.
The Union economy was based on manufacturing, and even the minorities in the North were better off than those in the South most of the time. The Northern politicians wanted tariffs, and a large army. The Southern plantation owners wanted the exact opposite.
Within the economy a great development had been achieved when the upper south handed its power to the lower south all due to the rise of an agricultural production. This expansion was led by the excessive growth of cotton in the southern areas. It spread rapidly throughout America and especially in the South. During these times it gave another reason to keep the slavery at its all time high. Many wealthy planters started a ‘business’ by having their slaves work the cotton plantations, which this was one of a few ways slavery was still in full effect. Not only were there wealthy planters, at this time even if you were a small slave-holder you were still making money. While all of this had been put into the works, Americans had approximately 410,000 slaves move from the upper south to the ‘cotton states’. This in turn created a sale of slaves in the economy to boom throughout the Southwest. If there is a question as to ‘why’, then lets break it d...
Alabama: A Documentary History to 1900 states “it is a truism that the Civil War altered the economic life of the south” (Griffith, Alabama: A Documentary History to 1900). Before the Civil War Alabama’s economy many depended on agriculture and a work force of slaves. A new south had been created that brought “free labor and greater diversification” (Griffith, Alabama: A Documentary History to 1900). This is in part due to the boom in the iron industry. Mills and mines had existed before the war, although not as influential as they became after the war. Even though cotton was still the dominant export of Alabama, coal iron and steel were becoming an increasing source of income (Griffith, Alabama: A Documentary History to 1900).
Slavery had a big impact on the market, but most of it was centered on the main slave crop, cotton. Primarily, the south regulated the cotton distribution because it was the main source of income in the south and conditions were nearly perfect for growing it. Cheap slave labor made it that much more profitable and it grew quickly as well. Since the development in textile industry in the north and in Britain, cotton became high in demand all over the world. The south at one point, was responsible for producing “eighty percent of the world’s cotton”. Even though the South had a “labor force of eighty-four percent working, it only produced nine percent of the nations manufactured goods”, (Davidson 246). This statistic shows that the South had an complete advantage in manpower since slavery wasn’t prohibited. In the rural South, it was easy for plantation owners to hire slaves to gather cotton be...
The Southern and Northern states varied on many issues, which eventually led them to the Civil War. There were deep economic, social, and political differences between the North and the South. These differences stemmed from the interpretation of the United States Constitution on both sides. In the end, all of these disagreements about the rights of states led to the Civil War. There were reasons other than slavery for the South?s secession. The manifestations of division in America were many: utopian communities, conflicts over public space, backlash against immigrants, urban riots, black protest, and Indian resistance (Norton 234). America was a divided land in need reform with the South in the most need. The South relied heavily on agriculture, as opposed to the North, which was highly populated and an industrialized society. The South grew cotton, which was its main cash crop and many Southerners knew that heavy reliance on slave labor would hurt the South eventually, but their warnings were not heeded. The South was based on a totalitarian system.
The South was at a disadvantage to the North throughout the war. The South was at a lack for manpower during the war, since most of the seamen in the US Navy were from the North and therefore stayed with the Union when the southern states seceded. The South was also found disadvantaged for iron plates for ship armor, since there was only one establishment in the South capable of producing them.