Monday, October 1, 2012

What's wrong with a little industry?

In the mid 19th century, the western world was rapidly industrializing.  In addition to building a diversified economy, most countries reaped the benefits of new forms of industry--including steam, railroads, assembly production, and lower priced goods. 

Why, then, if most of these countries welcomed industry with open arms, did the South seem to lag behind?  Consider all the articles when addressing this question--with all the benefits of industrialization, what are the cons, and how does it affect the labor force?  Why would the South want to continue to remain predominately agricultural? (Yes, this has to do with perpetuating the economic status quo, but what other reasons could there be?)....

11 comments:

  1. It is in my opinion that at this time the South had a great economy. They had a ton of land and plenty of good labor. However, only 2 of the three economical principles were met. Land and labor were, but entrepreneurship was not. I think many southerners were afraid of change. They were making incredible money and they seemed to be working very well together. The job security and the confidence that an industry would produce good money wasn't ensured. I also think the geography and climate wasn't right for an industry. Lumber and coal wasn't very handy in many places in the house. Industry is very good and has proven to be incredibly profitable, but in many times it was grueling work, with shifts up over 12 hours. Also it was a danger in some aspects depending on where you worked

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mackay justifies the Southern halt of industrialization to its already booming agricultural industry, but also to the importance of the Mississippi river. The south did not need to industrialize because this main river served as an excellent mode of transportation instead of railroads and allowed for an active market in southern commercial policy. Moreover, Kemble also touches on the point that industrialization has not "presented in any very exquisite points of beauty" and that industrialization has ruined the beauty of nature and its simplicity. Old ways of the economy were in fact productive. Perhaps the South was kind of smart in realizing that industrialization was occurring too rapidly for America's control, and that their "lack" of industrialization was truly under good consent because they knew it would be detrimental to the wellbeing of the country and its people. Cons of industrialization also include the labor forces and their life in the factory; one article stated that nearly 8 girls were sharing a dormitory in the factory and another article describes the lung poisoning a person can get from factories.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the letter that Fanny writes to her friend Harriet she is talking about a lot of construction projects which are started but do not seem to be finished soon. She is talking about the childish enthusiasm of the Americans to start a lot of projects although there are not able to archive an improvement in the ratio they want to.
    Another reason was that the southern states economy remained based on agriculture and saw no need to change all this. Probably it would have been very laborious to change the whole system, so they found it more comfortable to go on the same way. So all the immigrated wage laborers went to the north because it had a higher job security in fabrics.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The south had strong economy based on cotton. Because of its thriving economy, industrialization was not immediately necessary. I think Harriet Martineau was right that industrialization is a vehicle for social mobility. It seemed to afford women many opportunities other than domestic service. The potential for social mobility probably scared away the southerners who seemed to be set in their ways.

    ReplyDelete
  5. it only makes sense that the south lagged behind the rest of the country in the move to factory and machine based work rather then slave work forces. the south's huge economy of cotton (the king) was the main reason why slaves were kept as long as they were and that it took a war to end slavery. to end slavery would be end the economy of the south and would cripple the U.S. As many people think, slavery was the key to keep the U.S on top of the world economy and the only reason why the south felt bad about factorization is that is would take the cotton industry over and there would be no use for slaves and their incomes would decrease by a huge amount. it is also a factor that the use of more advanced technology would destroy the souths dependence on slavery because why make 6 slaves to the work of one tractor in half the time the slaves would.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with Abdoulaye in that the South did not see a need to produce other things since they had the cotton industry. Since the cotton plantation owners did not have to pay their workers, they kept massive profits and therefore saw itching wring with their system.
    Also, the Northern factories had instances of very poor treatment for workers. Some Southerners believed themselves to be treating slaves better than factory owners treated their workers in the North.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The south's set mindset on their reliance on the Textile Industry is what ultimately caused them to "lag behind." In Mackay's article it is described how the Mississippi River was used for all means of transportation acting as their railroad. This enabled them to halt their industrialization because the system was efficient enough for their likings. Small set backs such as avoiding the opening of a "dancing school" in Martineau's piece, demonstrates the importance of the worker's work ethic (it was believed that dancing would negatively effect it). Some cons of factory working include the conditions where they worked. Kemble described that "the horrors of that night's journey [she] shall not easily forget", when describing her trip from Philadelphia to a family owned slave plantation on the Georgia Coast, implying that the conditions were horrific.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I makes sense that the South would lag behind. In essence the industrial economy is the opposite of their agricultural economy. The labor force would have to change drastically and adapt to being in a factory barely moving from one spot but working just as hard if not with more difficulty. Also people are complacent we don’t like change, and the south continually set itself to be an exemplar of this human trait. While industry can enable you to produce a more varied produce line, it can also take a large toll on workers. It also requires lots of legal permits and such as well. To make things more difficult you have to manage our building/work space and make sure it met legal standard (if any). There are several advantages such as being less dependent on one product and on another's work, because you create your own product which is difficult in of itself.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think that during this period of time, the south didn't need to be industrialized. At this time they had a great agricultural economy. It was on the top for the cotton economy and was still thriving. It just was not necessary at this moment. Also, as said in Harriet Martineu Society in America, the northern industrialists were not treated well. And it goes on to say how it actually deprives workers. It says, "to a stranger, their pride seems to take a mistaken direction".

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Southern United Sates were always accustomed to a slower pace of life, and not as ready to adjust to the Northern way of rapid change. In the minds of the Southerners were heavily involved in the textile industry in England, through cotton farming. Farming yielded high profit margins, and required no drastic change to the Southern way of life. Plantation farming needed little money to pay the workers, little work from white people, and gave the whites power over their slaves. It was a perfect way of life that they intended to keep.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Through those articles, i think Southern do not value the change of the economy system for couple reason. The first is that it really takes tons of time, money and courage to change not only the economy system but also the way the southern society is entirely. The change would not bring dramatic benefits to the south immediately and it is totally understandable that someone does not want to bother themselves with current good condition for some thing that they are not familiar with at all. i would say that once people could move around easily, every thing in daily life become much more convenience would bring progressive thoughts that might break the stability of the south dramatically.

    ReplyDelete