journal article Show
Southern Cultures Vol. 6, No. 4 (WINTER 2000) , pp. 82-103 (22 pages) Published By: University of North Carolina Press https://www.jstor.org/stable/26236943 Journal Information Southern Cultures is an academic quarterly about the history and cultures of the U.S. South, published by UNC Press with the Center for the Study of the American South for readers in the South and beyond. Publisher Information The University of North Carolina Press is the oldest university press in the South and one of the oldest in the country. Founded in 1922, the Press is the creation of that same distinguished group of educators and civic leaders who were instrumental in transforming the University of North Carolina from a struggling college with a few associated professional schools into a major university. The purpose of the Press, as stated in its charter, is "to promote generally, by publishing deserving works, the advancement of the arts and sciences and the development of literature." The Press achieved this goal early on, and the excellence of its publishing program has been recognized for more than eight decades by scholars throughout the world. UNC Press is also the proud publisher for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture in Williamsburg, Virginia. More information can be found about the Omohundro Institute and its books at the Institute's website. For a full listing of Institute books on Books@JSTOR, click here. UNC Press publishes journals in a variety of fields including Early American Literature, education, southern studies, and more. Many of our journal issues are also available as ebooks. UNC Press publishes over 100 new books annually, in a variety of disciplines, in a variety of formats, both print and electronic. To learn more about our books and journals programs, please visit us at our website. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Digital History>Topics>Historiography Why was the turn of the century South the poorest part of the United States? Digital History TOPIC ID 106 Before the Civil War the South was one of the richest regions in the world, standing just behind Britain and the Northern states. More than half of the richest one percent of Americans were Southerners. Per capita income in the South-including slaves-was higher than that in India in 1960. Yet by the late nineteenth century, the South had come to symbolize rural poverty. By the 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt considered the South America's economic problem number 1. From the 1870s to 1930, per capita income in the region stood at only 55 to 60 percent of the national average. The South lagged far behind the rest of the nation in industrialization and urbanization. It seems likely that the South's economic backwardness and poverty contributed to such forms of anti-black racial violence as lynching. Why would it take almost a century following the Civil War for the South to achieve economic equality with other parts of the country? Was it due to a lack of skilled labor, a highly educated workforce, and a shortage of capital? Was it because Southerners were committed to agriculture and were reluctant to industrialize? Was it related to the South's racial conflicts? Or was it because northern corporations treated the South like an economic colony, a source of raw materials and cheap labor? To be sure, some industries did emerge in the South. Investors in Richmond, Va., helped organize the Southern Railroad, one of the nation's largest rail lines. Steel makers in Birmingham, Ala., created a steel industry second only to Pittsburgh's. Cigarettes, liquor, textiles, and Coca-Cola were other industries that developed in the South. During the late 19th century, promoters of the "New South" aggressively sought northern investment in the region. And the South's economy was growing. It grew rapidly after 1869, sometimes more rapidly than the rest of the United States. The South was better off economically than any European nation other than England. But while wealthy by world-wide standards and seemingly growing rapidly, the South was still far behind the most advanced sectors of the United States. But when all this is added up, the South still trailed the North and West significantly. Rural poverty was greater, and the South was heavily dependent on the sale of farm crops and raw materials (such as lumber and iron) whose prices were falling. The region failed to develop the growth industries of the era, such as electrical equipment, chemicals, meat processing, and machine tools. The industries that did develop tended to be low-value added industries, manufacturing rough textiles, turpentine, liquor, and tobacco products. Meanwhile, southern agriculture was much less mechanized than its northern or western counterparts and depended heavily on low-paid farm labor and sharecroppers. Capital was in short supply. Demand for manufactured goods was low, in part because the South's urban markets were small. Trained managers and skilled workers were scarce. But equally important, the South apparently had fewer entrepreneurs than in other regions-which was partly a legacy of slavery. The South's elite was less interested in business investment than its northern counterparts. The South's merchants and landowners had no tradition of industrial innovation or of applying science-based technologies to production. They had a strong stake in preserving the economic status quo. As landowners, they benefited from the low wages and limited mobility of black and white workers. Trapped in a system of sharecropping, debt, and tenant farming, African Americans were denied the opportunity to migrate out of the rural South and to participate in the industrial economy. For the most part, the industries that emerged in the South tended to be small-scale, local projects. Investors developed a small textile factory or a small saw mill, or one-room furniture factories. Southerners were far less likely than Notherners to develop large-scale business enterprises. The primary interest of southern investors was to maximize the value of land. Much of their energies were devoted to local land speculation and town building, rather than to investment in industry. Their goal was increase land values, attract settlers, or raise the level of commerce in a particular town. In the North, in contrast, investment was increasingly made in large-scale enterprises: in industries that produced for national and international markets and in train, telephone, and power systems that were regional or national in scale. What was the main difference between the economies of the northern and southern United States in the nineteenth century quizlet?In the early and mid-1800s, how did the economies of the Northern and Southern states compare? The North was industrialized, while the South was more agricultural.
What were the economic differences between the North and South during the Civil War?The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms. The North produced 3,200 firearms to every 100 produced in the South.
What hindered the economic growth of the South during the late 19th century?Capital was in short supply. Demand for manufactured goods was low, in part because the South's urban markets were small. Trained managers and skilled workers were scarce. But equally important, the South apparently had fewer entrepreneurs than in other regions-which was partly a legacy of slavery.
How did the economy develop differently in the various sections of the United States before the Civil War?The North had five times the number of factories as the South, and over ten times the number of factory workers. In addition, 90% of the nation's skilled workers were in the North. The labor forces in the South and North were fundamentally different, as well.
|
What was the main difference between the economies of the northern and southern United States in the nineteenth century?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 berikutyang Inc.
