Content deleted Content added
Chcgo undaground (talk | contribs) Stating that the Antebellum South was " largely plantation based" is unsubstituted opinion. only a portion of agricultural holdings were plantations, that is large farms whose labor was resident. In fact a large portion of bonded labor worked on small holdings, where as few as 2 or 3 slaves worked in the fields with the property owner. And then there were those slaves who had skills such as smithy or coopering, who could work for wages. Prove farming was largely plantation-based Tag: Manual revert |
Yamantakks (talk | contribs) Rephrasing. Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{AFI}} |
|||
{{Short description|Historical period in the Southern United States from 1815 to 1861}} |
{{Short description|Historical period in the Southern United States from 1815 to 1861}} |
||
{{Redirect|Antebellum era||Antebellum (disambiguation)}} |
{{Redirect|Antebellum era||Antebellum (disambiguation)}} |
||
{{Infobox historical era|name=Antebellum Period in the Southern United States|location=[[Southern United States]]|image=File:Family of slaves in Georgia, circa 1850.jpg|caption=There were just over 3.2 million slaves in the U.S. in 1850, about 14% of the total population.<ref>{{Cite web|title=1850 US Census, Chapter V: Slave Population of the US|url=https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1850/1850c/1850c-04.pdf|access-date=November 5, 2021}}</ref>|after=[[American Civil War]]<br> [[Confederate States of America]]|start=1815|end=1861|key_events=[[Adams–Onís treaty]]<br>[[Missouri Compromise]]<br> [[Indian removal]]<br> [[Trail of Tears]]<br> [[American frontier#Antebellum West|Manifest destiny]]<br> [[Nullification crisis]]<br> [[Mexican–American War]]<br> [[The Compromise of 1850|Compromise of 1850]]<br> [[Fugitive Slave Act of 1850|Fugitive Slave Act]]<br> [[Bleeding Kansas]]<br> [[1860 United States presidential election|Election of Lincoln]]|presidents=[[James Madison]]<br> [[James Monroe]]<br> [[John Quincy Adams]]<br> [[Andrew Jackson]]<br> [[Martin Van Buren]]<br> [[William Henry Harrison]]<br> [[John Tyler]]<br> [[James K. Polk]]<br> [[Zachary Taylor]]<br> [[Millard Fillmore]]<br> [[Franklin Pierce]]<br> [[James Buchanan]]<br> [[Abraham Lincoln]]|before=[[War of 1812]]<br> [[Jeffersonian democracy|Jeffersonian Era]]|including=[[Era of Good Feelings]]<br> [[Jacksonian democracy|Jacksonian Era]]<br> [[American Civil War|Civil War Era]]}} |
{{Infobox historical era|name=Antebellum Period in the Southern United States|location=[[Southern United States]]|image=File:Family of slaves in Georgia, circa 1850.jpg|caption=There were just over 3.2 million slaves in the U.S. in 1850, about 14% of the total population.<ref>{{Cite web|title=1850 US Census, Chapter V: Slave Population of the US|url=https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1850/1850c/1850c-04.pdf|access-date=November 5, 2021|archive-date=November 4, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211104125708/https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1850/1850c/1850c-04.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>|after=[[American Civil War]]<br> [[Confederate States of America]]|start=1815|end=1861|key_events=[[Adams–Onís treaty]]<br>[[Missouri Compromise]]<br> [[Indian removal]]<br> [[Trail of Tears]]<br> [[American frontier#Antebellum West|Manifest destiny]]<br> [[Nullification crisis]]<br> [[Mexican–American War]]<br> [[The Compromise of 1850|Compromise of 1850]]<br> [[Fugitive Slave Act of 1850|Fugitive Slave Act]]<br> [[Bleeding Kansas]]<br> [[1860 United States presidential election|Election of Lincoln]]|presidents=[[James Madison]]<br> [[James Monroe]]<br> [[John Quincy Adams]]<br> [[Andrew Jackson]]<br> [[Martin Van Buren]]<br> [[William Henry Harrison]]<br> [[John Tyler]]<br> [[James K. Polk]]<br> [[Zachary Taylor]]<br> [[Millard Fillmore]]<br> [[Franklin Pierce]]<br> [[James Buchanan]]<br> [[Abraham Lincoln]]|before=[[War of 1812]]<br> [[Jeffersonian democracy|Jeffersonian Era]]|including=[[Era of Good Feelings]]<br> [[Jacksonian democracy|Jacksonian Era]]<br> [[American Civil War|Civil War Era]]}} |
||
{{Periods in US history}} |
{{Periods in US history}} |
||
During the [[History of the Southern United States|historical timeline of the Southern United States]], the Antebellum Period (from {{lang-la|ante bellum|lit=[[Status quo ante bellum|before the war]]}}) extended from the [[Treaty of Ghent|conclusion]] of the [[War of 1812]] to the start of the [[American Civil War|American Civil War in 1861]]. This era in the South's history was marked by the prevalent [[Slavery in the United States|practice of slavery]] and the associated societal norms it cultivated. Over the course of this period, Southern leaders underwent a transformation in their perspective on slavery. Initially regarded as an awkward and temporary institution, it gradually evolved into a defended concept, with proponents arguing for its [[Slavery as a positive good in the United States|positive merits]], while simultaneously vehemently opposing the burgeoning [[Abolitionism|abolitionist movement]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Southern Argument for Slavery [ushistory.org]|url=https://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp|access-date=2021-11-07|website=www.ushistory.org|archive-date=2021-08-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210817120431/https://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
The economy was largely plantation based{{cn|date=July 2021}}, and dependent on exports. Society was stratified, inegalitarian, and perceived by immigrants as lacking in opportunities. Consequently the manufacturing base lagged behind the non-slave states. Wealth inequality grew as the larger landholders took the greater share of the profits generated by slaves, which also helped to entrench their power as a political class. |
The economy was largely plantation based{{cn|date=July 2021}}, and dependent on exports. Society was stratified, inegalitarian, and perceived by immigrants as lacking in opportunities. Consequently the manufacturing base lagged behind the non-slave states. Wealth inequality grew as the larger landholders took the greater share of the profits generated by slaves, which also helped to entrench their power as a political class. |
||
As the country [[Manifest destiny|expanded westward]], slavery's propagation became a [[Origins of the American Civil War|major issue in national politics]], eventually boiling over into the [[American Civil War|Civil War]]. In the years that followed, this period was [[Lost Cause of the Confederacy|romanticized by historical revisionists]] to protect three central assertions: that the [[Confederate States of America|Confederate]] cause was heroic, that enslaved people were happy and satisfied, and that slavery was not the primary cause of the war.<ref name="King">{{cite web |last1=King |first1=Connor |title=Lost Cause Textbooks: Civil War Education in the South from the 1890s to the 1920s |url=https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1274&context=hon_thesis |access-date=16 July 2021}}</ref> This phenomenon has continued to influence [[Racism against African Americans|racism]], [[Patriarchy|gender roles]], and [[Bible Belt|religious attitudes]] in the South, and to a lesser extent the rest of the country, to the present day.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Cox|first=Karen L.|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1054372624|title=Dixie's daughters : the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the preservation of Confederate culture|date=2019|others=John David Smith|isbn=978-0-8130-6413-0|edition=[2019 edition with new preface]|location=Gainesville [Florida]|oclc=1054372624}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Wilson|first=Charles Reagan|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/758389689|title=Baptized in blood : the religion of the Lost Cause, |
As the country [[Manifest destiny|expanded westward]], slavery's propagation became a [[Origins of the American Civil War|major issue in national politics]], eventually boiling over into the [[American Civil War|Civil War]]. In the years that followed, this period was [[Lost Cause of the Confederacy|romanticized by historical revisionists]] to protect three central assertions: that the [[Confederate States of America|Confederate]] cause was heroic, that enslaved people were happy and satisfied, and that slavery was not the primary cause of the war.<ref name="King">{{cite web |last1=King |first1=Connor |title=Lost Cause Textbooks: Civil War Education in the South from the 1890s to the 1920s |url=https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1274&context=hon_thesis |access-date=16 July 2021 |archive-date=6 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210506222729/https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1274&context=hon_thesis |url-status=live }}</ref> This phenomenon has continued to influence [[Racism against African Americans|racism]], [[Patriarchy|gender roles]], and [[Bible Belt|religious attitudes]] in the South, and to a lesser extent the rest of the country, to the present day.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Cox|first=Karen L.|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1054372624|title=Dixie's daughters : the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the preservation of Confederate culture|date=2019|others=John David Smith|isbn=978-0-8130-6413-0|edition=[2019 edition with new preface]|location=Gainesville [Florida]|oclc=1054372624}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Wilson|first=Charles Reagan|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/758389689|title=Baptized in blood : the religion of the Lost Cause, 1865–1920|date=2009|publisher=University of Georgia Press|isbn=978-0-8203-4072-2|edition=2009|location=Athens, Ga.|oclc=758389689}}</ref> |
||
== History == |
== History == |
||
In the 18th century, the [[Atlantic slave trade]] brought enslaved Africans to the South during the [[Colonial history of the United States|colonial period]] as a source of labor for the harvesting of crops. There were almost 700,000 enslaved persons in the U.S. in 1790, which equated to approximately 18 percent of the total population, or roughly one in every six people. This would persist through the 17th and 18th centuries, but it was not until the invention of the [[cotton gin]] by [[Eli Whitney]] in the 1790s, that slavery grew very profitable and that the large plantation system developed. In the 15 years between the invention of the cotton gin and the passage of the [[Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves]], an increase in the slave trade occurred, furthering the slave system in the United States.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Cotton Gin and the Expansion of Slavery|url=https://dp.la/primary-source-sets/cotton-gin-and-the-expansion-of-slavery|access-date=2021-11-07|website=Digital Public Library of America|language=en}}</ref> |
In the 18th century, the [[Atlantic slave trade]] brought enslaved Africans to the South during the [[Colonial history of the United States|colonial period]] as a source of labor for the harvesting of crops. There were almost 700,000 enslaved persons in the U.S. in 1790, which equated to approximately 18 percent of the total population, or roughly one in every six people. This would persist through the 17th and 18th centuries, but it was not until the invention of the [[cotton gin]] by [[Eli Whitney]] in the 1790s, that slavery grew very profitable and that the large plantation system developed. In the 15 years between the invention of the cotton gin and the passage of the [[Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves]], an increase in the slave trade occurred, furthering the slave system in the United States.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Cotton Gin and the Expansion of Slavery|url=https://dp.la/primary-source-sets/cotton-gin-and-the-expansion-of-slavery|access-date=2021-11-07|website=Digital Public Library of America|language=en|archive-date=2021-11-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211107231825/https://dp.la/primary-source-sets/cotton-gin-and-the-expansion-of-slavery|url-status=live}}</ref> |
||
== Economic structure == |
== Economic structure == |
||
Line 27: | Line 28: | ||
Phillips addressed the unprofitability of slave labor and slavery's ill effects on the Southern economy. An example of pioneering comparative work was "A Jamaica Slave Plantation" (1914).<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Jamaica Slave Plantation|last=Bonnell|first=Ulrich|publisher=WENTWORTH Press, 2016|year=1914}}</ref>{{Non-primary source needed|date=February 2022}} His methods inspired the "Phillips school" of slavery studies, between 1900 and 1950. |
Phillips addressed the unprofitability of slave labor and slavery's ill effects on the Southern economy. An example of pioneering comparative work was "A Jamaica Slave Plantation" (1914).<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Jamaica Slave Plantation|last=Bonnell|first=Ulrich|publisher=WENTWORTH Press, 2016|year=1914}}</ref>{{Non-primary source needed|date=February 2022}} His methods inspired the "Phillips school" of slavery studies, between 1900 and 1950. |
||
Phillips argued that large-scale plantation slavery was inefficient and not progressive. It had reached its geographical limits by 1860 or so, and therefore eventually had to fade away (as happened in [[Slavery in Brazil|Brazil]]). In 1910, he argued in "The Decadence of the Plantation System" that slavery was an unprofitable relic that persisted because it produced social status, honor, and [[Slave Power|political power]]. "Most farmers in the South had small-to-medium-sized farms with few slaves, but the large plantation owner's wealth, often reflected in the number of slaves they owned, afforded them considerable prestige and political power."<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=http://www.historynet.com/antebellum-period|title=Antebellum Period |
Phillips argued that large-scale plantation slavery was inefficient and not progressive. It had reached its geographical limits by 1860 or so, and therefore eventually had to fade away (as happened in [[Slavery in Brazil|Brazil]]). In 1910, he argued in "The Decadence of the Plantation System" that slavery was an unprofitable relic that persisted because it produced social status, honor, and [[Slave Power|political power]]. "Most farmers in the South had small-to-medium-sized farms with few slaves, but the large plantation owner's wealth, often reflected in the number of slaves they owned, afforded them considerable prestige and political power."<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=http://www.historynet.com/antebellum-period|title=Antebellum Period – HistoryNet|website=www.historynet.com|language=en-US|access-date=2017-02-13|archive-date=2016-11-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161119043829/http://www.historynet.com/antebellum-period|url-status=live}}</ref> |
||
Phillips contended that masters treated enslaved persons relatively well; his views on that issue were later sharply rejected by [[Kenneth M. Stampp]].{{citation needed |date=October 2020}} His conclusions about the economic decline of slavery were challenged in 1958 by [[Alfred H. Conrad]] and [[John R. Meyer]] in a landmark study published in the ''[[Journal of Political Economy]]''.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Alfred H. |last1=Conrad |first2=John R. |last2=Meyer |title=The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South |volume=66 |issue=2 |year=1958 |pages=95–130 |jstor=1827270 |journal=Journal of Political Economy |doi=10.1086/258020|s2cid=154825201 }}</ref> Their arguments were further developed by [[Robert Fogel]] and [[Stanley L. Engerman]], who argued in their 1974 book, ''[[Time on the Cross]],'' that slavery was both efficient and profitable, as long as the price of cotton was high enough. In turn, Fogel and Engerman came under attack from other historians of slavery.{{citation needed|date=October 2020}} |
Phillips contended that masters treated enslaved persons relatively well; his views on that issue were later sharply rejected by [[Kenneth M. Stampp]].{{citation needed |date=October 2020}} His conclusions about the economic decline of slavery were challenged in 1958 by [[Alfred H. Conrad]] and [[John R. Meyer]] in a landmark study published in the ''[[Journal of Political Economy]]''.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Alfred H. |last1=Conrad |first2=John R. |last2=Meyer |title=The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South |volume=66 |issue=2 |year=1958 |pages=95–130 |jstor=1827270 |journal=Journal of Political Economy |doi=10.1086/258020|s2cid=154825201 }}</ref> Their arguments were further developed by [[Robert Fogel]] and [[Stanley L. Engerman]], who argued in their 1974 book, ''[[Time on the Cross]],'' that slavery was both efficient and profitable, as long as the price of cotton was high enough. In turn, Fogel and Engerman came under attack from other historians of slavery.{{citation needed|date=October 2020}} |
||
Line 48: | Line 49: | ||
One example of England utilizing the American colonies for economic gain was [[tobacco]]. When tobacco was first discovered as a recreational substance, there was a widespread social backlash in England, spearheaded by King [[James VI and I|James I]] himself. By the middle of the 17th century, however, [[Parliament of Great Britain|Parliament]] had realized the revenue potential of tobacco and quickly changed its official moral stance towards its use. As a result, tobacco plantations sprung up across the American South in large numbers to support European demand. By 1670, more than half of all tobacco shipped to England was being re-exported to other countries throughout Europe at a premium. In similar ways Britain was able to profit from other American staple crops, such as cotton, rice, and indigo. As Russell Menard puts it, Britain's capitalizing on increased European demand for these crops "fueled the expansion of the American plantation colonies, transformed the Atlantic into an English inland sea, and led to the creation of the first [[British Empire]]." |
One example of England utilizing the American colonies for economic gain was [[tobacco]]. When tobacco was first discovered as a recreational substance, there was a widespread social backlash in England, spearheaded by King [[James VI and I|James I]] himself. By the middle of the 17th century, however, [[Parliament of Great Britain|Parliament]] had realized the revenue potential of tobacco and quickly changed its official moral stance towards its use. As a result, tobacco plantations sprung up across the American South in large numbers to support European demand. By 1670, more than half of all tobacco shipped to England was being re-exported to other countries throughout Europe at a premium. In similar ways Britain was able to profit from other American staple crops, such as cotton, rice, and indigo. As Russell Menard puts it, Britain's capitalizing on increased European demand for these crops "fueled the expansion of the American plantation colonies, transformed the Atlantic into an English inland sea, and led to the creation of the first [[British Empire]]." |
||
Many claim that being a part of the British mercantilist system was in the best economic interest of the American colonies as well, as they would not have been able to survive as independent economic entities. Robert Haywood, in his article "Mercantilism and South Carolina Agriculture, 1700–1763", argues that "it was unthinkable that any trade could prosper in the straight-jacket of regimented and restricted international trade, without the guiding hand of a powerful protecting government."<ref>Haywood, C. Robert. "Mercantilism and South Carolina Agriculture, |
Many claim that being a part of the British mercantilist system was in the best economic interest of the American colonies as well, as they would not have been able to survive as independent economic entities. Robert Haywood, in his article "Mercantilism and South Carolina Agriculture, 1700–1763", argues that "it was unthinkable that any trade could prosper in the straight-jacket of regimented and restricted international trade, without the guiding hand of a powerful protecting government."<ref>Haywood, C. Robert. "Mercantilism and South Carolina Agriculture, 1700–1763." ''The South Carolina Historical Magazine'', vol. 60, no. 1, 1959, pp. 15–27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27566205 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190824172039/https://www.jstor.org/stable/27566205 |date=2019-08-24 }}.</ref> |
||
==Adverse economic effects== |
==Adverse economic effects== |
||
The plantation |
The plantation system created an environment for the South to experience an economic boom in the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries. However, reliance on both the plantation system and more widespread slave labor, left the South in a precarious economic situation. Following the end of the Civil War and into [[Reconstruction era]] (1863-1877), the South experienced economic devastation. Some states that relied less heavily on the plantation system managed to fare better following it's downfall <ref>{{cite web |title=State by State {{!}} American Experience |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/reconstruction-states/ |website=PBS.org}}</ref> Ulrich Bonnell Phillips contends that the plantation "sadly restricted the opportunity of such men as were of better industrial quality than was required for the field gangs." Essentially, men who would have been otherwise capable of performing other skilled jobs were nonetheless relegated to field work because of the nature of the system.<ref name=":0" /> |
||
A 1984 journal article by [[Claudia Goldin]] and [[Kenneth Sokoloff]] suggested that the South misallocated labor compared to the North, which more eagerly embraced women and child labor in its factories to push forward industrialization due to their relative value to Northern agriculture being lesser than in Southern agriculture.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goldin |first1=Claudia |first2=Kenneth |last2=Sokoloff |title=The Relative Productivity Hypothesis of Industrialization: The American Case, 1820 to 1850 |journal=The Quarterly Journal of Economics |date=1 August 1984 |volume=99 |issue=3 |pages=461–487 |doi=10.2307/1885960|jstor=1885960 |s2cid=154315014 |url=http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:30703977 }}</ref> |
A 1984 journal article by [[Claudia Goldin]] and [[Kenneth Sokoloff]] suggested that the South misallocated labor compared to the North, which more eagerly embraced women and child labor in its factories to push forward industrialization due to their relative value to Northern agriculture being lesser than in Southern agriculture.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goldin |first1=Claudia |first2=Kenneth |last2=Sokoloff |title=The Relative Productivity Hypothesis of Industrialization: The American Case, 1820 to 1850 |journal=The Quarterly Journal of Economics |date=1 August 1984 |volume=99 |issue=3 |pages=461–487 |doi=10.2307/1885960 |jstor=1885960 |s2cid=154315014 |url=http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:30703977 |access-date=20 February 2022 |archive-date=11 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230911021053/https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/30703977 |url-status=live }}</ref> |
||
While the South still attracted immigrants from Europe, the North attracted far more during the early-to-mid 1800s, such that by the time of the American Civil War, the population of the North far exceeded the non-enslaved population of the South per the [[1860 United States census]]. [[Colin Woodard]] argued in his 2011 book ''[[American Nations]]'' that the South was relatively less successful in attracting immigrants due to the South's reputation as a more stratified society. Striving immigrants who sought economic advancement thus tended to favor the more egalitarian North, compared to the more aristocratic South, where there were fewer perceived opportunities for advancement.<ref>{{cite book |last=Woodard |first=Colin |author-link=Colin Woodard |date=2011 |title=American Nations |publisher=Viking |page= |isbn=}}</ref> |
While the South still attracted immigrants from Europe, the North attracted far more during the early-to-mid 1800s, such that by the time of the American Civil War, the population of the North far exceeded the non-enslaved population of the South per the [[1860 United States census]]. [[Colin Woodard]] argued in his 2011 book ''[[American Nations]]'' that the South was relatively less successful in attracting immigrants due to the South's reputation as a more stratified society. Striving immigrants who sought economic advancement thus tended to favor the more egalitarian North, compared to the more aristocratic South, where there were fewer perceived opportunities for advancement.<ref>{{cite book |last=Woodard |first=Colin |author-link=Colin Woodard |date=2011 |title=American Nations |publisher=Viking |page= |isbn=}}</ref> |