WI South had industrialised

NapoleonXIV

Banned
What if the planters had built their own textile plants? Would the tariff had been such an issue? Would they find slavery inefficient for factory workers and begin manumitting a pool of workers? Would the CW be different if the South had the robust metal and machinery industries that the North had developed largely to serve the textile base? Would it have happened at all?
 

Straha

Banned
try no americanrevolution and BRitain's resources are helping north ameirca. Slavery is ended peacefully in 1833 with the ex-slaves beign able to find work at the expanding factories. BY 1900 The Confederation of North AMerica has a black PM by the name of CArter Monoghan... This british north ameirca includes OTL's america+canada+cuba+the british carribean and bermuda.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
SurfNTurfStraha said:
try no americanrevolution and BRitain's resources are helping north ameirca. Slavery is ended peacefully in 1833 with the ex-slaves beign able to find work at the expanding factories. BY 1900 The Confederation of North AMerica has a black PM by the name of CArter Monoghan... This british north ameirca includes OTL's america+canada+cuba+the british carribean and bermuda.
I was unclear, by the planter class I meant the cotton planters. These grew up after the invention of the cotton gin in 1810. The textile plants, of course, also depended on this.
There were planters and plantations in the South before, of course, but either they weren't that influential overall or they didn't use as many slaves because slavery was declining in the South during the Revolution and continued to do so until 1810.
 

Glen

Moderator
NapoleonXIV said:
What if the planters had built their own textile plants? Would the tariff had been such an issue?

Probably less of an issue.

Would they find slavery inefficient for factory workers and begin manumitting a pool of workers?

Probably not. Easy enough to sell off excess slave workers.

Would the CW be different if the South had the robust metal and machinery industries that the North had developed largely to serve the textile base? Would it have happened at all?

Closer fight between North and South. However, the North will still end up with the advantage in manpower for fighting since they will have more population growth due to immigration for nascent industry, whereas the South's manpower base is still heavily slave, and thus not particularly reliable for recruitment for the frontlines (though they might do it anyway...).
 
Britain relied heavily on America's (especially the southern states cotton) raw materials. If the south would have industrialized and produce their own finished goods, then Britain would have had a vested interest in a different country like Egypt for their raw materials and cotton.

England would have never aided the north in the naval blockade and the south would have been able to successfully defeat the North in the Civil War.

Not only would they have had their own cotton/texttile factories, but they would be able to manufacture more guns and supply troops with railroads.
 
On the one hand this would've been very smart (in hindsight), but OTOH, planters would protest why they had to waste money for that if you can use the same money for more profit simply by planting cotton.
 

The Sandman

Banned
This begs the question of what happens in the North. If the textile factories end up in the south, what sort of factories will replace them?
 
Max Sinister said:
On the one hand this would've been very smart (in hindsight), but OTOH, planters would protest why they had to waste money for that if you can use the same money for more profit simply by planting cotton.

Most planters were a fairly conservative bunch. I'm not sure why no planter ever did this however. In hindsight, it would be a good idea.
 
Kidblast said:
Most planters were a fairly conservative bunch. I'm not sure why no planter ever did this however. In hindsight, it would be a good idea.

I can think of two reasons off the top of my head. Textile mills tended to be in cities in which the social controls of slavery were drastically loosened and thus presented a threat to the existing social order. Because of this the urban slave population was falling rather considerably in the decades before the civil war against all other logic. Secondly slaves were valuable and factories were dangerous. Planters were wary about renting out their slaves at a pitence while exposing them to the considerable risk of industrial accidents.
 
The Sandman said:
This begs the question of what happens in the North. If the textile factories end up in the south, what sort of factories will replace them?

The north would probably still have a sizable chunk of the textile industry do to all those wonderful rivers and immigrants. As factory technology improved and they start to be built in the south, the north will keep on industrializing in the other early aspects of industry such as pig iron/steel, manufactured goods, chemicals etc because the capital for investment is still up north and the momentum has already been started. So while atlanta, charleston and richmond may become textile towns it probably won't replace the steel of pittsburg or the watches and rifles of New Haven.
 
What about a state-driven industry? You buy slaves from planters, manumit them and have them sign contracts they don't understand. Now they have to live in your houses, work in your factories, and can't leave. At least one governor should be able to pull it through.
 
NapoleonXIV said:
What if the planters had built their own textile plants?

They did, to an extent. If you mentally divide the South and North into separate nations, the South was the sixth-largest producer of cotton textiles in the world in 1860. Britain was far and away the largest, with the North coming a distant second.

Would the tariff had been such an issue?

Yes. The South had difficulty competing for exports of textiles with Britain (see below), and thus producing more textiles wouldn't have really helped. The objection to the tariff was that it meant that Britain could have retaliated with tariffs on the other manufactured goods which the South wanted to import.

The South's textile industry (and the North's for that matter) couldn't compete with Britain's for _export_ purposes, in part due to Britain's more efficient manufacturing industry and in part because of transportation costs - British shipping was more efficient and also closer to the prime markets (i.e. Europe). The North's and the South's textile industry, by and large, served only the domestic market (and a bit in Canada, if memory serves).

Would they find slavery inefficient for factory workers and begin manumitting a pool of workers?

No. Slaves worked just fine in factories. They weren't used more in factories because cotton was profitable enough that it sucked slave labour out of Southern manufacturing. But then, it sucked it out of other agricultural crops too. The use of slaves in tobacco and rice was declining largely because cotton was even more profitable.

Would the CW be different if the South had the robust metal and machinery industries that the North had developed largely to serve the textile base?

The South did actually have a surprising amount of industry by world standards. If they'd had a bit more, it might have prolonged the war a bit, but the weight of manpower and industrial power would still likely have rested with the North.

Would it have happened at all?

Probably. I can see ways to avoid the ACW, but increased Southern manufacturing doesn't directly lead to it. Barring butterflies, of course.
 
jmo, the South had a raw material kindofa economy, the South did well with it. In the long haul, they didn't have a balanced economy, like the north did. England was an Industrial powerhouse that sucked in raw materials, and spit out finnished products that were far more valueble, and they had the markets cornered for the most part. It didn't matter what was selling where....England sold it where the price was best, and ruthlessly protected thier rights in said markets.
 

Xen

Banned
The thing about industry is it brings in immigration as well, so my bet is slavery will eventually be butterflied away and there would be no American Civil War. Now this does not mean the Cotton Planters are going to want to lose slavery, but they will likely be out voted in state legislatures, and their influence will be reduced by the industry moguls.

Perhaps they try a little filibustering in New Mexico/Arizona? Or Perhaps they decide to take their slaves and leave the US for Brazil? I believe their will end up being more harmony between North and South, with the north having a little bit less immigration and the south having more.
 
Top