Excellent piece. The South was locked into a bad economy, but it also continued to promote this model despite the writing on the wall. When Anglos started to move into Mexican Texas, they started growing cotton there as well, bringing lavery along, and where aghast when Mexico abolished slavery in 1821. The reason for Texas' push for independence was, in good part, the growing pressure from the Mexican authorities to end slavery in Texas as well. "Freedom for Texas" meant Freedom to keep enslaving other human beings". Makes the Alamo look a lot less heroic...
I think that you are greatly exaggerating the role of slavery in the Texas revolt. You are missing that the Texas revolt was part of a much larger revolt across Mexico against the authoritarian powers of General Santa Ana.
The key event was not the abolition of slavery, but Santa Anna taking power in April 1834, inaugurating the Centralist Republic of Mexico. The 1824 Constitution was overturned; state legislatures were dismissed, militias disbanded. Citizens in the states of Oaxaca and Zacatecas took up arms.
As far as I know, the desire to legalize slavery was not an important cause of the opposition.
Mexico abolished slavery in the Guerrero Decree, which was issued by President Vicente R. Guerrero on September 15, 1829 (not 1821). Santa Ana was not even in power then. Guerrero exempted Texas from the decree.
Plus American migration to Texas accelerated after Mexico abolished slavery. It seems highly unlikely that a region that was far removed from the center of Mexico’s population and government and full of American citizens would ever have accepted dependence.
Well, a comment is not an academic treatise. Mexico tolerated slavery in Texas for a while, as you correctly mention, but pressure to finally bring Texas into line did mount, Anglo Texans did not want to lose their slaves, and it did constitute one of the causes for the war. I never said it was the only cause, and Santa Ana was indeed bad news, but it is a fact that the slavery issue was indeed a big factor. Details are in Carrie Gibsons book: "El Norte. The Epic And Forgotten Story of Hispanic North America". Makes the Alamo still look less than heroic...
No, I do not expect "an academic treatise." If you had left off the snarky final sentence, then I probably would not have replied. Being willing to die fighting against tyranny is heroic even if all the reasons for doing so are not we deem as morally pure in the 21st century. And besmirching the sacrifice is distasteful.
The book that you referenced only has a short section on the Texas revolt.
If your claim is that slavery played a role, then I agree. But the Texas revolt was far better understood as one part of a general revolt of the Mexican provinces against the centralized authoritarian policies of Santa Ana.
That does indeed make the Alamo heroic, along with the other Mexicans who died fighting against Santa Ana.
Great article. I think far too many people underestimate the importance of geography and food production on modern history.
One additional cause of the different economic development between the North and South is the different types of people who settled in each region. The Puritans who settled in New England and the Quakers who settled in Pennsylvania came from relatively commercialized regions in England. Same for the Dutch who settled New York. Meanwhile the Cavaliers who settled in Virginia and the white slave owners from Barbados who settled in South Carolina were from more traditional agricultural regions with unskilled agricultural laborers.
I have no doubt that the differing geographies of each colony were part of the reason why they chose to settle in different colonies, but the type of society they left behind in England played an important role as well.
I read once that even after growing and harvesting, *processing* cotton bolls was so intensive that even with slave labor it was STILL unprofitable… until the invention of the cotton gin. One more little facet?
Very interesting, thanks. I would nit pick that more important than hours of labour per acre is the hours of labour per value of the crop. I expect your math still works out but if for example an acre of cotton produced $1,000 of value per year and an acre of wheat produced $100 of value per year then cotton would have justified higher labour costs.
I think this early period still ripples through the US and helps explain a more violent culture than just about anywhere else in the world.
About the last paragraph. In a world driven by outrage algorithms, hate, and division, I think this is a vital Humanistic message that is sorely missing, and deserves a central place in the global conversation.
Having exchanged a few emails with you a year or so ago touching on the mission / vision of UT, I think that the final paragraph of this article is the best articulation I've seen from you about what UT is trying to achieve "...we can stop blaming each other for people’s terrible past [present, and future] deeds, and try instead to understand these mechanisms to steer humanity in the right direction, together". You've used this Geohistoric framework to explain the present, and try to predict the future - and I therefore think in this one paragraph you've nailed why I continue to subscribe and read you avidly.
This geohistoric underlying framework of rationality and humanism is much more important to me (and I suspect many of your readers) than agreeing with what 'You believe' as stated in your 'About'....maybe time to revisit that?
Superb article, dear Tomas! As you can see from the comments, this article is such a step forward from your articles on German Energy Policy, which weren't bad per se but this piece is so much more concise and itss arguments are so well aligned! It's like spa treatment for the brain🥳. I shared this beautiful piece already with friends - because it's so good!
Fascinating article, Tomas. So well documented and with amazing infographics! Thank you so much for this walk along U.S. history.
Geography and climate implications of such geopositioning have a clear impact and has determined uses and life since ancient times, therefore conditioning culture, but even more the language structure which also shows the mindset of different peoples. As discussions and agreements come from conversations, the different uses or references for a certain word or concept may lead to unexpected results. Even the lack of a concept and therefore of the corresponding word has brought consequences along history. There is no need of any bad faith or misconduct to bring negative results, just unknowingly/unnoticed misunderstandings totally undetectable at the time.
This called my attention since I was a teenager and I considered fascinating learning languages, as it helped me in understanding more in depth the differences amongst populations and countries. Coming from Europe this differences in climate linked to different cultures and different languages was rather easy to spot.
I have really enjoyed your thorough and easy to read article Tomas. Congrats again.
Really well-done. I grew up in the north, but have spent half of the last 30 years in the south, and as a history geek this really tells a story that is stripped of bias, passion and politics. Thank you for this fresh look!
Fascinating article. The labour difference between the major Northern and Southern crops was shocking. I guess I knew there was a difference but not that it was so great. I do know, from friends who picked tobacco in South-Western Ontario that it is much worse than stooking or bringing in sheaves of grain.
BTW, that picture of the four cultivating machines is mislabelled at one point. What appears to be labelled "reaping machine" is actually a "seed drill" (i.e. the machine that planted the seed).
Really interesting article, again! Tomas I’m a big fan of yours - not because I always agree with you but because you are an original and truly free thinker. I really appreciate that.
One question I have which I think is not wholly answered: Why did the Northern/Free States want to abolish slavery? Besides the ethical/moral side of it, what other incentives pushed them towards abolition?
From what I understand, and my expertise is limited to having read about colonial opinions on slavery in Spain, Britain, and the U.S., it was mostly ethical.
But once you have an ethical stance against slavery and abolish it at home, you have an additional incentive in abolishing it elsewhere, to eliminate the labor cost advantage.
Very interesting. I would suggest an article about William Wilberforce's almost unknown pioneering fight to forbid slavery trade and abolish all slavery in the whole British Empire that he finally won in 1833, and the global consequences of this great change that again almost nobody has even heard about
Really enjoyed this. One thought is that cost per area is an interesting metric, but it doesn’t address the varying profitability of different crops. Addressing that aspect explicitly might further clarify the existential differences between a single family wheat farm and a sugar plantation.
Very incisive comment. I struggled to find the right metric for this. I settled on h/a as an easy to understand one, tying economics (hours ~ wages ~ labor) to the other limiting factor (land). I started going down the path of $/acre and realized I’d need to build financial models for each type of crop. Too much work!
Excellent piece. The South was locked into a bad economy, but it also continued to promote this model despite the writing on the wall. When Anglos started to move into Mexican Texas, they started growing cotton there as well, bringing lavery along, and where aghast when Mexico abolished slavery in 1821. The reason for Texas' push for independence was, in good part, the growing pressure from the Mexican authorities to end slavery in Texas as well. "Freedom for Texas" meant Freedom to keep enslaving other human beings". Makes the Alamo look a lot less heroic...
I didn’t realize. Oh wow!
I think that you are greatly exaggerating the role of slavery in the Texas revolt. You are missing that the Texas revolt was part of a much larger revolt across Mexico against the authoritarian powers of General Santa Ana.
The key event was not the abolition of slavery, but Santa Anna taking power in April 1834, inaugurating the Centralist Republic of Mexico. The 1824 Constitution was overturned; state legislatures were dismissed, militias disbanded. Citizens in the states of Oaxaca and Zacatecas took up arms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_de_Santa_Anna#Santa_Anna_and_the_early_Mexican_Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolts_against_the_Centralist_Republic_of_Mexico
As far as I know, the desire to legalize slavery was not an important cause of the opposition.
Mexico abolished slavery in the Guerrero Decree, which was issued by President Vicente R. Guerrero on September 15, 1829 (not 1821). Santa Ana was not even in power then. Guerrero exempted Texas from the decree.
Plus American migration to Texas accelerated after Mexico abolished slavery. It seems highly unlikely that a region that was far removed from the center of Mexico’s population and government and full of American citizens would ever have accepted dependence.
Makes your comment look a lot less accurate…
Well, a comment is not an academic treatise. Mexico tolerated slavery in Texas for a while, as you correctly mention, but pressure to finally bring Texas into line did mount, Anglo Texans did not want to lose their slaves, and it did constitute one of the causes for the war. I never said it was the only cause, and Santa Ana was indeed bad news, but it is a fact that the slavery issue was indeed a big factor. Details are in Carrie Gibsons book: "El Norte. The Epic And Forgotten Story of Hispanic North America". Makes the Alamo still look less than heroic...
No, I do not expect "an academic treatise." If you had left off the snarky final sentence, then I probably would not have replied. Being willing to die fighting against tyranny is heroic even if all the reasons for doing so are not we deem as morally pure in the 21st century. And besmirching the sacrifice is distasteful.
The book that you referenced only has a short section on the Texas revolt.
If your claim is that slavery played a role, then I agree. But the Texas revolt was far better understood as one part of a general revolt of the Mexican provinces against the centralized authoritarian policies of Santa Ana.
That does indeed make the Alamo heroic, along with the other Mexicans who died fighting against Santa Ana.
Great article. I think far too many people underestimate the importance of geography and food production on modern history.
One additional cause of the different economic development between the North and South is the different types of people who settled in each region. The Puritans who settled in New England and the Quakers who settled in Pennsylvania came from relatively commercialized regions in England. Same for the Dutch who settled New York. Meanwhile the Cavaliers who settled in Virginia and the white slave owners from Barbados who settled in South Carolina were from more traditional agricultural regions with unskilled agricultural laborers.
I have no doubt that the differing geographies of each colony were part of the reason why they chose to settle in different colonies, but the type of society they left behind in England played an important role as well.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-european-settlers-in-north-america
I read once that even after growing and harvesting, *processing* cotton bolls was so intensive that even with slave labor it was STILL unprofitable… until the invention of the cotton gin. One more little facet?
Correct!
An invention meant to stop slavery made it profitable!
the single best, comprehensive description of the civil war and the reasons why. excellent article.
Very interesting, thanks. I would nit pick that more important than hours of labour per acre is the hours of labour per value of the crop. I expect your math still works out but if for example an acre of cotton produced $1,000 of value per year and an acre of wheat produced $100 of value per year then cotton would have justified higher labour costs.
I think this early period still ripples through the US and helps explain a more violent culture than just about anywhere else in the world.
About the last paragraph. In a world driven by outrage algorithms, hate, and division, I think this is a vital Humanistic message that is sorely missing, and deserves a central place in the global conversation.
Having exchanged a few emails with you a year or so ago touching on the mission / vision of UT, I think that the final paragraph of this article is the best articulation I've seen from you about what UT is trying to achieve "...we can stop blaming each other for people’s terrible past [present, and future] deeds, and try instead to understand these mechanisms to steer humanity in the right direction, together". You've used this Geohistoric framework to explain the present, and try to predict the future - and I therefore think in this one paragraph you've nailed why I continue to subscribe and read you avidly.
This geohistoric underlying framework of rationality and humanism is much more important to me (and I suspect many of your readers) than agreeing with what 'You believe' as stated in your 'About'....maybe time to revisit that?
Thank you Paul!
Good feedback. I’ll think about it!
Superb article, dear Tomas! As you can see from the comments, this article is such a step forward from your articles on German Energy Policy, which weren't bad per se but this piece is so much more concise and itss arguments are so well aligned! It's like spa treatment for the brain🥳. I shared this beautiful piece already with friends - because it's so good!
Thank you!
One idea: you put the hours of work in relation to the acres, but you thing to put the value of the produced good as denominator, so h/$?
As I got down that path, I realized I had to build a financial model to do this right, so I stopped!
Hours is a good proxy for labor, which is a good proxy for cost, whereas price includes supply and demand fluctuations
Fascinating article, Tomas. So well documented and with amazing infographics! Thank you so much for this walk along U.S. history.
Geography and climate implications of such geopositioning have a clear impact and has determined uses and life since ancient times, therefore conditioning culture, but even more the language structure which also shows the mindset of different peoples. As discussions and agreements come from conversations, the different uses or references for a certain word or concept may lead to unexpected results. Even the lack of a concept and therefore of the corresponding word has brought consequences along history. There is no need of any bad faith or misconduct to bring negative results, just unknowingly/unnoticed misunderstandings totally undetectable at the time.
This called my attention since I was a teenager and I considered fascinating learning languages, as it helped me in understanding more in depth the differences amongst populations and countries. Coming from Europe this differences in climate linked to different cultures and different languages was rather easy to spot.
I have really enjoyed your thorough and easy to read article Tomas. Congrats again.
Really well-done. I grew up in the north, but have spent half of the last 30 years in the south, and as a history geek this really tells a story that is stripped of bias, passion and politics. Thank you for this fresh look!
The south wanted cheap cotton so we have to deal with race-driven strife until the end of time. Dang.
Fascinating article. The labour difference between the major Northern and Southern crops was shocking. I guess I knew there was a difference but not that it was so great. I do know, from friends who picked tobacco in South-Western Ontario that it is much worse than stooking or bringing in sheaves of grain.
BTW, that picture of the four cultivating machines is mislabelled at one point. What appears to be labelled "reaping machine" is actually a "seed drill" (i.e. the machine that planted the seed).
Thanks!
Really interesting article, again! Tomas I’m a big fan of yours - not because I always agree with you but because you are an original and truly free thinker. I really appreciate that.
One question I have which I think is not wholly answered: Why did the Northern/Free States want to abolish slavery? Besides the ethical/moral side of it, what other incentives pushed them towards abolition?
From what I understand, and my expertise is limited to having read about colonial opinions on slavery in Spain, Britain, and the U.S., it was mostly ethical.
But once you have an ethical stance against slavery and abolish it at home, you have an additional incentive in abolishing it elsewhere, to eliminate the labor cost advantage.
Very interesting. I would suggest an article about William Wilberforce's almost unknown pioneering fight to forbid slavery trade and abolish all slavery in the whole British Empire that he finally won in 1833, and the global consequences of this great change that again almost nobody has even heard about
Really enjoyed this. One thought is that cost per area is an interesting metric, but it doesn’t address the varying profitability of different crops. Addressing that aspect explicitly might further clarify the existential differences between a single family wheat farm and a sugar plantation.
Very incisive comment. I struggled to find the right metric for this. I settled on h/a as an easy to understand one, tying economics (hours ~ wages ~ labor) to the other limiting factor (land). I started going down the path of $/acre and realized I’d need to build financial models for each type of crop. Too much work!
Excellent follow up to your article on wheat vs rice cultures.
A series on commodities is emerging here. I’d put these 2 articles along with those on silk, porcelain, tea, opium, and silver!