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.
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.
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 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?
Tomas, very interesting essay! Great to see the different pieces pit together so well. Tobacco and sugar were bad crop choices for the south. Not subsistence plants, finicky to grow, and labor intensive. Cotton isn't much better, not a "luxury" crop like the others, but not subsistence and also hugely labor intensive. Interesting to think how history mi6 have differed had early colonists in the South planted subsistence crops that required less labor. The North's victory in the Civil War was made inevitable because of population, economy, and mechanization. Tragic that Southern leaders threw their people into a destructive war that couldn't be won. Like Trump they thought slavery "wasn't all bad."
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
the single best, comprehensive description of the civil war and the reasons why. excellent article.
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.
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 this is the most insightful article since the Covid one, hammer and dance.
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?
Excellent follow up to your article on wheat vs rice cultures.
Fantastic article, thanks!
Tomas, very interesting essay! Great to see the different pieces pit together so well. Tobacco and sugar were bad crop choices for the south. Not subsistence plants, finicky to grow, and labor intensive. Cotton isn't much better, not a "luxury" crop like the others, but not subsistence and also hugely labor intensive. Interesting to think how history mi6 have differed had early colonists in the South planted subsistence crops that required less labor. The North's victory in the Civil War was made inevitable because of population, economy, and mechanization. Tragic that Southern leaders threw their people into a destructive war that couldn't be won. Like Trump they thought slavery "wasn't all bad."