With the end of the Civil War, the United States saw itself in a time of great transition. The war, like many before and since, ushered in a great many technological and societal changes. While there have been many attempts to demonstrate how the South shook off its old ways after the war, its unique climate, natural resources, and demographics seem to have destined it to a certain economic trajectory. The American West, on the other hand, saw a great increase in economic activity with the coming of the railroad and the availability of inexpensive land for homesteading.
The South began the postbellum period at a great disadvantage. The war had been fought chiefly in the South, itself, save for Lee’s brief incursions. A goal of the Union’s strategy was to cripple an already-disadvantaged area’s economic productivity. The port city of New Orleans, a vital link, was in Union hands for much of the war. Sherman, with his march to the sea, destroyed rail lines and other vital resources. This wholesale destruction of much of the Southern economy would perpetuate and exaggerate the disadvantages it had already suffered in relation to its manufacturing capabilities. The liberation of the enslaved population would prove to be a big challenge to Southern agricultural production, although new arrangements were made that left many former enslaved individuals in virtual, if not literal bondage.
Cotton, the most vital of Southern crops, continued to dominate agricultural production in the postbellum period. The climate was well-suited for it, making this a justifiable course of action. However, this left much of Southern agricultural production tied to the fate of a single crop. It has been noted however, that the South was not especially profitable due to its natural resources. What the South possessed in abundance was human resources, namely disadvantaged individuals eager to earn the relatively low wages associated with farm work.[1]
The American West, on the other hand, would become host to numerous activities due to its natural resources. The effort to build the Transcontinental Railroad would provide ready access of these resources to the eastern markets. Mining, be it for precious metals or other minerals that would become a chief product. Vast forests also lay relatively untouched until after the war. And while the climate was not as well suited for crop production, the vast, open plains were suitable enough for large-scale cattle ranching. Unlike the South, these vast resources would be developed in great boom/bust cycles, rapidly attracting settlers.
Douglas Dowd points out the character of the populations of the two regions greatly impacted late 19th century development. Particularly religious populations such as the Mormon settlers of Utah would place a great importance on thrift and economic development. The vast stretched of the unpopulated American West were a great attractor to the enterprising and entrepreneurial, religious or otherwise. Overall, there was a great spirit of vitality and possibility. In comparison, the South remained relatively insular and isolated. While the end of Reconstruction did see an increase in investment in the South from northern industrialists, Southerners were less likely to seek their fortunes and improve their status elsewhere in the country. As Dowd points out, “to leave the South would be to leave for another and an enemy country.”[2]
Michelle Connelly further elaborates in a similar study of economic history of the postbellum South. While the West did grow slowly in comparison to other regions of the United States, the South grew even more slowly due to a variety of factors. Education was a key factor according to Connelly. The resistance to providing proper educational resources to the newly freed African American population was one factor. However, education, in general lagged elsewhere in the nation. One reason given was the reluctance of the wealthier classes to educate their workforce out of fear that it would lead them to leave the South for better opportunity elsewhere. This left the South with a largely unskilled labor force.[3] Dowd likewise points out that this trait was even advertised as an asset when the South belatedly attempted to attract outside investment, with the docility and compliance of both the African American and the white worker being marketed to the North.[4]
The West, in comparison, seemed more readily accepting of the new and different. The difficult character of the West, without the abundant and cheap labor force of the South, saw it more willing to adapt the latest technologies. Windmills, barbed wire, and hybridized seeds were just a few of the technologies critical to the success of its economy. Likewise, as mechanization took hold, the West was readily accommodating.
The South and the West are both sources of myth and a great deal of scholarly debate. The two regions would define much of the 19th century to this day, albeit for different reasons. Though both regions would lag the rest of the United States in many economic factors during the postbellum period up through 1900 and beyond, the West would prove more eager to adapt to the rapidly-modernizing economy. In the South, in contrast, the perpetuation of older, insular attitudes for too long after the Civil War would see a region possessing great potential continue to lag both in real economic measures in American perception for many years to come. In contrast, the American West would in the minds of many come to exemplify the best of the United States. Historians such as Fredrick Jackson Turner, with his Frontier Thesis, would do much to cement this in the American mind. While the South would come to define itself as resistant to the change that seemed ever-present in American life, the West would be seen as quite the opposite, brimming with people willing to adapt and overcome the harsh challenges of settling this most-rugged frontier.
[1] DeCanio, Stephen. “Productivity and Income Distribution in the Post-Bellum South.” The Journal of Economic History 34, no. 2 (1974): 445. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2116989.
[2] Dowd, Douglas F. “A Comparative Analysis of Economic Development in the American West and South.” The Journal of Economic History 16, no. 4 (1956):574. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2114700.
[3] Connolly, Michelle. (2004). “Human Capital and Growth in the Postbellum South: A Separate but Unequal Story.” The Journal of Economic History. 64 (2004): 363-399. 10.1017/S0022050704002736.
[4] Dowd, Douglas F. “A Comparative Analysis of Economic Development in the American West and South,” 574.
Comments