Series of economic changes that took place starting in the early 1800's and lasting to mid-1800's
- Great improvements in transportation, steamboat, building of canals, the railroad → much more efficient and rapid transportation of goods and ideas throughout the country. Slaveholders and traders saw the advantage of this and used these improvements to strengthen the slave market economy.
Refers to a shift in economic activity where more and more farmers and city men were producing goods for the market rather than for their own subsistence. Many went from rural self-sustaining → industrial, city, manufacturing all for market to earn a profit/wage.
- Before the 1800's much of the population lived in rural areas. Majority of these small rural farmers and their families grew and created goods for their own families' support, but by around 1840, a large and ever-increasing margin of people were producing goods for the marketplace. → as this shift occurred, the lives of many changed in social political and other ways as well.
Created a violent departure of the previous social norms and it contributed to the creation of domestic ideology
Just about everyone in the U.S. was affected by this rise of market relations. Although majority of the North saw the market revolution as a positive, many Southerners' detested the changes incited by the revolution. Some men experienced greater independence due to the market; some of them lost their economic independence and were forced to find work in factories, under the dictation of a superior.
- George Fitzhugh, a southern slaveholder exemplifies the Southern distaste for the growing wage-based economy in the North. In his article Cannibals All!, he maintains that being a wage worker in the capitalist system created by the market revolution was to be involved in "wage slavery", which is "is little better than moral cannibalism" (Fitzhugh, 1).
The later Missouri Compromise revealed how the MR had exacerbated the sectional difference over slavery and deepened the divide between the N and S.
In the 80 years between the American Revolution and the Civil War, the North and South developed along distinct and opposing lines economically, politically, and culturally. The South took a very different economic course than the North. After the Revolutionary War, tobacco income plummeted, cotton brought the stagnant southern economy back to life. While the North became an industrial and manufacturing powerhouse deeply affected by social reform movements like abolitionism and women's rights, the South became a cotton kingdom, founded on slavery, whose inhabitants generally abstained from or opposed such reformist tendencies.
- Mainly occurred along the black belt which had the best soil for growing cotton
- Cotton production controlled life in the South
- The gin made mass cotton production in the South feasible and helped to institutionalize slavery in the region. The Louisiana Purchase and the annexation of Texas as a slave state helped to expand the Cotton Kingdom. Politically, cotton became the foundation of southern control of the Democratic Party.
- The widespread use of the cotton gin, invented by Eli Whitney in 1793, made cotton plantations efficient and profitable. The demand for cotton also grew because of the developing textile industries in the North and in Britain. Cotton plantations spread across the South, and by 1850, the southern U.S. grew more than 80 percent of the world's cotton.
The South became a veritable "Cotton Kingdom," remaining rural and agrarian while the North became industrialized. Rich plantation owners saw little reason to spend their capital on risky industrial projects when cash crops brought in a large, steady income.
The cotton kingdom also brought more people to the South. Getting rich by growing raising a cotton crop where slaves did all the hard labor was attractive to many farmers. Causing great growth in the areas new slave owning states such as Texas quickly grew. Politicians quickly saw that if the south got more states they would dominate the north in the senate. When this happened, they planned to reject any law made by the north to abolish slavery, and also ban any bill that may benefit the north.
As the U.S. cotton industry developed, other countries became more dependent on cotton produced in the American South. The power of cotton allowed the Confederacy to employ cotton diplomacy as its foundation for foreign relations during the Civil War; Southerners attempted to use cotton to pressure countries such as England and France into the war on behalf of the Confederacy. Southern leaders were convinced that the key to their success lay in gaining international recognition and help from European powers in breaking the blockade that the Union had thrown up around coastal areas and ports and that was increasingly effective as the war went on.
Toward the end of his first term in office, Jackson was forced to confront the state of South Carolina on the issue of the protective tariff. Business and farming interests in the state had hoped that Jackson would use his presidential power to modify tariff laws they had long opposed. In their view, all the benefits of protection were going to Northern manufacturers, and while the country as a whole grew richer, South Carolina grew poorer, with its planters bearing the burden of higher prices.
The protective tariff passed by Congress and signed into law by Jackson in 1832 was milder than that of 1828, but it further embittered many in the state. The tariff, southerners insisted, was essentially a tax on their region to assist northern manufacturers. South Carolina expressed the loudest outcry against the tariff. At a public meeting in Charleston, protesters declared that a tariff was designed to benefit "one class of citizens [manufacturers] at the expense of every other class." Some South Carolinians called for revolutionary defiance of the national government.
In response, a number of South Carolina citizens endorsed the states' rights principle of "nullification," which was enunciated by John C. Calhoun, Jackson's vice president until 1832. Calhoun offered a theoretical framework, drawing from the Constitution, for Southern discontent by demonstrating that since they freely joined the Union and were not forced to join, that their neither forced to follow legislation that damages their state. South Carolina dealt with the tariff by declaring both the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void within state borders.
Ultimately, South Carolinians abandon nullification
- Calhouns nullification logic would later become the legal precedent for secession
That second forced migration was known as the domestic, or internal, slave trade: "In the seven decades between the ratification of the Constitution [in 1787] and the Civil War ," the historian Walter Johnson tells us in his book Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market, "approximately one million enslaved people were relocated from the upper South to the lower South ... two thirds of these through ... the domestic slave trade."
- Why? Because of the unprecedented growth of the cotton industry. Until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, cotton harvesting was extremely labor-intensive.
- Slaves sold down the river due to transportation that the market revolution allowed → The more money the planters made from cotton, the more cotton they wanted to grow. The more cotton the planters wanted to grow, the more slaves they needed to grow the cotton. The world's desire for cotton — and the Southern planters' and Northern industrialists' desire for profits — seemed insatiable.
- - The Market Revolution created canals, railroads and steamboats (much faster and more efficient ways of transportation) and this greatly increased the market economy for slavery and the movement of slaves in the second middle passage.
- The internal slave trade became the largest enterprise in the South outside of the plantation itself, and probably the most advanced in its employment of modern transportation, finance and publicity."
When the Constitutional Convention debated the issue of how to count population for the purposes of representation, the Southern delegates wanted nonvoting slaves to be counted as full persons. That way, the Southern states would have had a greater representation in the House of Representatives. In contrast, some Northern delegates resisted counting slaves at all. Why, asked Elbridge Gerry, "should the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle & horses of the North?"
Slaves were to be counted as less than whites for representation, which was not in the interests of the South. Slaves were, however, also to be counted as less than whites for measuring a state's apportioned direct-tax liability, and that was a benefit to the South
Even though slaves were property under the laws of the Southern states, the Constitution itself acknowledged that they were persons. In addition, by tying both representation and direct taxation to apportionment, the Framers removed any sectional benefit, and thus any proslavery taint, from the special counting rule.
3/5th's of the ENTIRE slave population was to be counted or included in the representation of the population of a state
The 3/5th Compromise greatly augmented southern political power.
- In Congress, where each state had an equal vote, there were only five states in which slavery was a major institution.
- - Thus the southern states had about 38 percent of the seats in the Continental Congress.
- - Because of the 1787 Three-Fifths Compromise, the southern states had nearly 45 percent of the seats in the first U.S. Congress, which took office in 1790.
- - - The Senate, Supreme Court Judges, the House of Representatives all were usually Southern dominated and therefore tended to push Southern agenda in the government
- - - - This is viewed as unfair to the North and is arguably the beginning of the Slave Power Conspiracy the North maintained
Southern response to the market revolution, a narrative of justification for slavery
- It is out of the "virtue" of white men that they protect slaves from the brutal market world and provide housing for them
- - When men portrayed as fatherly figure that had a duty as civilized white men to uplift and improve the life of slavery
- - - Whites were benevolent fathers to slaves and therefore slavery was a necessary good
- Use paternalistic narrative as a tool to attack capitalism
- - Ex. George Fitzhugh in "Cannibals All!" is a perfect example of the paternalistic narrative used in the South
- - - Uses paternalism as a positive defense of slavery and an attack against wage labor and capitalism
- - - "The master allows the slave to retain a larger share of the results of his own labor" than do those in free labor. And, "the master provides provides food, reimant, hose, fuel and everything else necessary to the physical well-being of slaves and their families"
- Johnson's book Soul by Soul demonstrates how buyers and sellers of slaves in the New Orleans slave market could easily mix the language and values associated with paternalism and commercialism.
- - His book reveals how slave owners and traders, etc. liked to emphasize the paternalistic aspects of slavery—the natural bonds linking master and servant and the cradle-to-grave care that distinguished the lot of the Southern slave owners from that of the Northern 'wage slave' and market brutality.
- Paternalism combatted commodification, or at least it created a more favorable view of slavery
- The slave market was the underlying reason whites' rhetoric began to conform to a paternalistic ideology that held that masters were watching over slaves, buying or selling slaves for reasons that would benefit slaves, who could not, or would not, care for themselves.
- The market culture of slavery was based in fantasy- as was paternalistic ideology
Rationalized slavery with irrational claims, but many of the South believed them because it was beneficial to them, the economy, supported by bible and laws, or because their literacy skills and education were not that adept.
Pro-slavery ideology developed during the antebellum period in the ways of the church and the Bible, through literature, the economy, and through the laws of the government. The church was one of the most effective means of gaining support for slavery because of the strong faith Southerners had in God and their spiritual leaders. Literature, specifically pamphlets, was very effective in spreading messages. There were many pro-slavery pamphlets produced, and George Fitzhugh was one of the most prominent writers. His views on slavery were easily spread, and could have influenced many people to develop support of slavery. Laws passed during the antebellum period greatly influenced the development of pro-slavery ideology. These laws did not prohibit the growth of it, but rather influenced it. The Missouri Compromise along with the Fugitive Slave Law and Kansas-Nebraska Act promoted the growth of slavery more towards the North and westward in the continental United States. The agricultural economy of the South promoted pro-slavery ideology because of the need for manual labor.
Gag rule, in U.S. history, any of a series of congressional resolutions that tabled, without discussion, petitions regarding slavery
This was passed by the House of Representatives between 1836 and 1840 and repealed in 1844. Abolition petitions, signed by more than 2,000,000 persons, had inundated Congress after the establishment of the American Anti-Slavery Society (1833).
Gag rules, supported by proslavery congressmen, postponed the consideration, printing, and referral of such positions
An expression of the "Free Soil" policy of Northerners who wanted individual farmers to own and operate their own farms
This gave any free man who applied free land, typically west of the Mississippi River
Signed into law in May 1862, the Homestead Act opened up settlement in the western United States, allowing any American, including freed slaves, to put in a claim for up to 160 free acres of federal land. By the end of the Civil War, 15,000 homestead claims had been established, and more followed in the postwar years.
After the southern states had seceded, homestead legislation was high on the Republican agenda. The Homestead Act of 1862 provided that any adult citizen (or person intending to become a citizen) who headed a family could qualify for a grant of 160 acres of public land by paying a small registration fee and living on the land continuously for five years.
Before the Civil War, the southern states had regularly voted against homestead legislation because they correctly foresaw that the law would hasten the settlement of western territory, ultimately adding to the number and political influence of the free states. This opposition to the homestead bill, as well as to other internal improvements that could hasten western settlement, exacerbated sectional conflicts
Gerald A. Danzer, J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Larry S. Krieger, Louis E. Wilson, Nancy Woloch Deborah Gray White, William Deverell Alan Brinkley, Albert S. Broussard, Donald A. Ritchie, James M. McPherson, Joyce Appleby