In what ways was the economy different in 1860 from what it had been in 1800?

Answer 1

The early nineteenth century, (1800-1850) witnessed an explosion of economic, industrial and urban growth in most of the northern states. The development in the north was "qualitative as well as quantitative growth", but growth in the southern states wasn't as dramatic, as it had more "intensive economic growth without any important changes in economic structures or techniques", leading to the economic alienation of the southern states prior to the Civil War. An illustration of this esculative expansion is in the increase in transportation infrastructures. Previous to this turning point in American history, "overland travel had improved little since the days of the Roman Empire", but by 1840, 3,328 miles of rail had been laid, more than the length of the rails of Britain, "the pioneer in this mode of transport". Indeed, by 1860, the length of American rail laid down was almost 31,000 miles, as much as the rest of the world put together. Additionally, the number of steamboats along the United States' canals exploded from about 12 in 1815 to approximately 3,000 in 18604. This profound increase in transportation was instrumental in the expansion of trade. However, the canals and railroads mainly ran in an east-westerly direction, linking northern states together, but alienating the lagging southern states. According to McPherson, this strengthening of the northern states helped "weld them together against the South in the secession crisis of 1861". Although the majority of the rail ran east-west, "as late as 1860 there was still no railroad crossing the continent", suggesting that the long term effects of a intra-continental railway had yet to provide links so substantial to influence the outcomes of the Civil War. However, the increased national market from the developing transportation meant that farmers were able to more easily support the growing urbanisation, with support from various agricultural improvements. Between 1820 and 1860, the urban population grew 3 times as fast than the rural population as a result of the increase in manufacture and industrialisation in the cities. 10% of the free-state population lived in urban areas in the North (1820), but by 1860, this figure had grown to 26% and only 10% in the South.

According to McPherson, the economic lag of the South came "not from any inherent economic disadvantages... but from the choices of Southerners who had money to invest". This statement is reiterated by Louis Wigfall, a politician from Texas, who stated that "we want no manufacturers; we desire no trading, no mechanical or manufacturing classes". This stoic grip on traditional development resulted in only a small amount of foreign-born Immigration compared to the stream of migrants in the northern states. Indeed, less than an eighth of immigrants settled in southern states, preferring its more cosmopolitan counterparts. Although the south is often portrayed as poor and inferior, William Lowndes Yancey, a secessionist, valued the four million southern slaves in October 1960 at $2.8billion "according to Virginia prices". There is considerable evidence, however, that the wealth of the southern states were unequally distributed. Olsen writes that of the 6,184,477 white people in the Southern Slave States, only 347,525 of them were listed as owner in the census of 1850. Furthermore, Pessen argues in his essay, 'The Similarities between the Antebellum North and South', that although the slave states had unequal distribution of this wealth, especially when one includes the vast numbers of slaves, "the patterns of wealth distribution in Southern cities were very much like those that obtained in the North".

by the 1860s the united states had almost 31,000 miles of railroad tracks