Well as I'm sure you're all aware, Chap. 10 of Henretta is all about the economic revolution. Henretta outlines how America went from being completely reliant on Britain for production, to being not only self-reliant, but feared competition to Britain. What strikes me is how the revolutionary spirit seemed to carry over from the war and into our economic attitude. The American North seemed to grasp the potential of America at a very early time. While the South was clinging to the increasingly archaic ideals of slavery, the North was clawing its way to become the economic power-house of the western world. Northern venture capitalists were doing whatever it took to seize the American dream and take advantage of opportunities, including stealing British technology and improving upon it. Their fervor was so compelling that they were even able to entice British defectors to illegally immigrate to America and contribute to the industrial technology. Not all technology came from Britain, but much of it was invented in America. Instead of being comfortable in their ways, Americans not only jumped on the bandwagon of the industrial revolution, but were pivotal in contributing to that revolution. During the early stages of the textile movement, women (often young girls) were exploited and used for cheap labor in textile factories. This exploitation and cheap labor made it possible for factories to compete with established British manufacturers and gave some women a feeling of independance rarely experience in this time. Was this exploitation justified? Would the industrial revolution been possible without it?
Thanks to these new technologies, a new class of workers was created and nurtured by the Labor Movement. Skilled workers went on strike and demanded higher pay and better conditions. The industrial revolution and technology gained also led to the transportation movement and rapid growth in industrial towns. What cased the South to be largely left out during the Industrial Revolution? Without slavery would the South have balanced its agricultural economy with production? Was the conflict with the North over the slavery issue what caused Southerners to be short sighted and not persue a more production based approach? It seems to me that a circular logic crippled the South's ability to adapt to a changing world and would eventually not only pass them by, but leave them unequipped to deal with the future of their lifestyle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Well I understand the questions you're asking allude to the possibility that the entirety of the country may have been considered an "economic power-house" if emphasis was on production rather than agriculture. But wouldn't it also be fair to say that the production of the north was only possible because of the agricultural basis of the south? Let's just play with the idea for a second that the culture of the southern states, the raw materials they produced, and the conflict between the north and the south actually drove the country into prosperity. I mean, what is better motivation to prosper than to see your rivaling states be left in the dust? And inversely, what is a better way to institute a power struggle with "superiority" than to be blatantly consistent, and unwavering in the things that drive the "superiority" crazy...and make a few bucks at it too.
It seems that the only technologies the South adopted were the use of the cotton gin to produce more cotton quickly and the use of the steamboat to transport it. They did not need to purchase other new technologies because slaves could do all the work for them. In addition, perhaps the lack of education in the South made them ignorant to the convenience these new technologies could provide for them.
The economy of this time period was growing but not exactly in a positive way. Like was mentioned in class, the South had returned to a colonial type economy with the North as their "rulers". If only the South had found a way to teach plantation owners to fend for themselves, introduce machines, and understand exactly what the North was doing to them.
I agree with Jake in that the southern agriculture was pivotal to economic development. This leads me to my answer to why the south seemed left out of the revolution. The South was largely left out of the revolution because the south was so dominantly agricultural and not so much developmental like the North was.
One reason that the South was left out of the industrial revolution was the lack of education in the South. People were not able to diversify themselves at all in the South without education. Wealthy plantation owners were having to send their children to states in the North in order for them to get a proper education that was not available in the South. I think that the South would have had a difficult time surviving without slavery in the south because their economy was so dependent on slaves, and the South's main function was becoming simply to produce materials for the North.
would the beginning of the industrial revolution been possible with out women? i believe so, i give them credit for doing it, but if they wouldn't have then there was a large amount of poor immigrants waiting to fill their shoes.
I think that a lot of the production of the north was made possible through the agriculture production in the south. It made for a situation where there was always another way to better either the north or the south. It could have been possible that the north and south pushed one another towards different means of production.
Obviously the exploitation of women, children and immigrants, while helpful, was not justified. It may have been difficult to achieve such results and compete so well with Britain, but the justification of labor exploitation is what allowed slavery to exist for so many years. This new kind of exploitation was only a small step up from slavery.
I would definitely agree that using slaves in the south and using lower class workers in the north was a huge reason the economic boom happened, and that's why there was so much clashing between views in this time period. It was essentially an insoluble dilemma since the abolitionists were pressing, but the south couldn't just give up slavery all of a sudden, and obviously both sides of these impossible issues just felt alienated by eachother.
Also I don't think the industrial revolution would've had hardly the potency it did if it were without the cheap labor it used, and so it may have been a shame, but was fortunate for the nation's growth.
It's obvious that south only benefited because of their labor forces. They were lazy in that aspect and did not contribute to the new industrial economy. They did have the cotton gen but if that counts considering the speculation of who actually invented it.
Post a Comment