Capitalism VS Agrarian Economics

jomini · Corporal Joined: 18 Jan 2007 Posts: 2

Can the civil war be perceived as a struggle between two economic systems, both free market, but with different social and cultural bases?

O'Bruadair · Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:25 am Post subject:

A struggle between industrialist and agrarian peoples and cultures certainly. However the people who held sway in the north were in no way in favour of true free market economics.

The yankee economic philosophy was a mercantilist one. In other words what they wanted was taxation (mostly in the form of tariffs and gifts of land from the public domain at that time) and other laws and policies that would benefit industrial and commercial corporations (yankee corporations of course). We call this today “corporate welfare”.

Most Southerners believed in a free trade policy and that the federal government should have very limited powers (as the constitution said, as it was originally written and interpreted)

They knew, as the founding fathers knew, that the yankee plan for consolidation of power in the federal government combined with high taxes for so called “internal improvements” was a recipe for corruption and exploitation on a massive scale. They were right. Look what happened in the Grant administration.

chief_joseph · Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject:

Yo dudes,
this is where we are coming near to a speculation point from A-Z - so as I am thinking.
A great goal of the Union was to centralize the market in the US and than swap the big deals to the world market.
It is not that much differeniating from that what a centralized Confederate government was trying to achieve.
The situation was clear set on a fact right in the eves beginning war.
The Confederates governement was knowing that they MUST have needed a unique goal in reaching market perspectives.
* Takes me to the word of UNION in the terms of its meaning*

N.W.15thAR · Captain Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Posts: 167

Like O'Bruadair said, I dont really see it as Capitalism v. Agrarianism. Its more like Industrialism v. Agrarianism. Since capitalism is an economic philosophy that is about free market economy, (which in the U.S. we have a mixed economy) which both sides had since the purchasing and sale of goods and services could be conducted privately without govt. intervention, which the opposite of that is Communism! (DANG REDS!) but anyways, I can see how someone could make the arguement that it the war was to protect a long tradition of plantation families. This was a great topic, and im really glad you thought of it!

Pvt. Gale
N.W. 15th Arkansas

cwalenta999 · Sergeant Major Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 60

One mistake that you can make when analyzing history is to project current attitudes and perceptions backwards in time.

First and foremost, despite the sweeping social changes that the industrial revolution would bring, BOTH the economies of both North and South were still largely agricultural. Farming would remain the predominant occupation until (I think the 1930s but I could be wrong here).

International trade, while growing, was still an extremely small percentage of overall GDP, essentially burdened by the lack of steam powered ships (even today most Americans don't realize that total trade as a percentage of total GDP is FAR under the percentages seen in European economies and even Canada which has a heavy reliance on exporting to the US)

Life expectancy in 1900 is about 40 years in the United States in the 19th century cholera and even malaria were still problems. In 1840, Texas, which was part of Mexico, was apparently attractive enough to draw emigration from the United States.

The interstates obviously didn't exist and there was a high likelihood that people born in a certain county most probably would live, die and NEVER leave that particular area.

The reason why I write this is because many look at the Civil War and see the 'industrialized' North vs. the 'agrarian' South. I don't feel its particularly accurate. Don't forget, there were STILL FARMS ON MANHATTAN.

N.W.15thAR · Captain Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Posts: 167

I revised my comments and I will change it to the more industrialized north V. the agrarian south. And I really did see where you were comming from. Aside, even in todays economy, states like Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Minnisota?, and Wisconsin, still probably make more money from agraculture (inculding livestock)than almost anything else. I know Iowa does cause all it is, is CORN AND BEANS...such a boring place.

Pvt. Gale
N.W. 15th Arkansas

southjeff15s.s · Corporal Joined: 28 Apr 2008 Posts: 5

i have a dbq to do if any one can help plz let me know thank you