American History Buffs, Pre-Civil War Stuff ...

[Picaro]

... for those who like academic papers on economic and political economy history and the root causes of the war.

Problems in Modeling Complex Dynamic interactions: The Political Realignment of the 1850s
Robert W. Fogel

Problems in Modeling Complex Dynamic interactions: The Political Realignment of the 1850s

The aim of this paper is to break open the stochastic component of a maj or political change and to show that what seems like the product of purely chance events is the particular conjunction of processes, each of which is definable in a systematic way, that provide collectively a favorable context in which purely chance events operate. It is only in a particular context that the purely chance events became decisive in bringing about a particular political outcome. Section 1 emphasizes that Lincoln's margin of victory in 1860 was so small that anyone of numerous chance events could have resulted in his defeat. Sections 2-4 outline the intergenerational, cohort, and period changes and events that created a context favorable for the political realignment of the l850s. Section 5 describes the key chance events of 1855 -1856, the absence of any of which could have prevented the formation of a major national Republican party in 1856, as well as the chance (or at least exogenous) events of 1857-1859, the absence of which could have led to splits in the Republican party that would have insured the victory of a proslavery candidate for the Presidency in 1860. Section 6 deals with the problems and advantages of turning the theory of the political realignment of the l850s implicit in sections 2-5 into an explicit, testable mathematical model. Section 7 explains why it is impossible to produce a general theory of political realignments that would have significant predictive power.

One flaw in the narrative is he leaves out the fact that the Republicans ran different campaigns in different regions, and how that plays out; the campaigns in the East were in some cases contradictions of those run in the Midwest, their stronghold as a regional Party, but the paper is bound to be interesting to history buffs.

It's also included in this book:

American Economic Development in Historical Perspective : Thomas Weiss : 9780804720847

The book is in three parts.The first set of essays deals with the meaning and measurement of economic growth and development: economic growth during the antebellum period; the long-term behavior of such financial variables as stock and bond yields and the savings rate; immigration to the United States during the 1850's; and the juxtaposition of economic history and development. The second group of essays examines the influence of institutional changes on American economic growth: the importance of ideas, ideologies, and institutions in sustaining growth; seasonality in labor markets; risk sharing, crew quality, labor shares, and wages in the whaling industry; and capital formation in midwest farms and industries. The essays of the third section analyze events in the political economy of U.S. development: the role of economic issues in the political realignment that led to the election of Abraham Lincoln; the effect of the Civil War on the economic fortunes of Philadelphia's entrepreneurs; the effect of the silver movement on price stability; and the growth and triumph of oligopoly

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quite interesting. Just how "close" was the election is a matter for consideration. Lincoln won PA and OH quite easily, with 56 and 52%, respectively, and the latter was ten points ahead of Douglas. Changing the election would have required both states to go for Douglas in order to put the election into the House. Lincl

 

[Pogo]

One flaw in the narrative is he leaves out the fact that the Republicans ran different campaigns in different regions, and how that plays out; the campaigns in the East were in some cases contradictions of those run in the Midwest, their stronghold as a regional Party, but the paper is bound to be interesting to history buffs.

And in fact they didn't run a campaign in the South at all. Neither Lincoln in 1860 or 1864, nor their first POTUS candidate Frémont (1856) appeared on a ballot in the South. Lincoln's name didn't even appear in his birth state of Kentucky until 1864.

 

[Picaro]

One flaw in the narrative is he leaves out the fact that the Republicans ran different campaigns in different regions, and how that plays out; the campaigns in the East were in some cases contradictions of those run in the Midwest, their stronghold as a regional Party, but the paper is bound to be interesting to history buffs.

And in fact they didn't run a campaign in the South at all. Neither Lincoln in 1860 or 1864, nor their first POTUS candidate Frémont (1856) appeared on a ballot in the South. Lincoln's name didn't even appear in his birth state of Kentucky until 1864.

The Party lost seats in the 1862 in the mid-western states, and only kept seats in the border states because of Lincoln's troops controlling the ballot boxes in most of them. He had a private army of 75,000 troops inside the Union army commanded by friendly officers picked by the Party.He placed some in New York City, too, as the city almost seceded along with the southern states. Secessionist movements were also active in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, but didn't as much traction as in New York City.

In any case, the book I posted is a more comprehensive set of papers on American economic and immigration history, some that add to Fogel's paper, some that disagree. I haven't checked to see if those are also available online yet. I own the book itself, and I haven't yet checked to see if the book version matches the paper or has been revised here and there. There is also an earlier version of the paper published a year earlier; should be a link to it on the NBER page, for comparison and revisions made.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, NYC did not almost secede: such is incorrect verbosity.

Yes, there were some dissidents in the North, growing in some numbers in lower Illinois, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, and quite a bit of Maryland and Tennessee.

Yes, Lincoln used his constitutional powers as he saw necessary to preserve the Union.

What astounds the reasonable, informed mind was that he, cloaked with immense power, did not act the Dictator more than he did.

 

[Picaro]

No, NYC did not almost secede: such is incorrect verbosity.

This is indeed new, Jake; you should run around to every History dept. in the country and alert them to this, since you're the only one who seems to know it didn't almost secede. You would be a hero. When is your book on this coming out? It will be a must read.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, NYC did not almost secede: such is incorrect verbosity.

This is indeed new, Jake; you should run around to every History dept. in the country and alert them to this, since you're the only one who seems to know it didn't almost secede. You would be a hero. When is your book on this coming out? It will be a must read.

You believe in nonsense. NYC did not "almost secede." There is no historical evidence for it. You, as most neophytes may, mistake the bitter Irish dislike as Democrats and anti-black in sentiment for seceding. If you are saying they opposed the war effort, you are correct. But there was no almost secession attempts.

 

[Picaro]

One flaw in the narrative is he leaves out the fact that the Republicans ran different campaigns in different regions, and how that plays out; the campaigns in the East were in some cases contradictions of those run in the Midwest, their stronghold as a regional Party, but the paper is bound to be interesting to history buffs.

And in fact they didn't run a campaign in the South at all. Neither Lincoln in 1860 or 1864, nor their first POTUS candidate Frémont (1856) appeared on a ballot in the South. Lincoln's name didn't even appear in his birth state of Kentucky until 1864.

Yes. The Republican Party was an almost entirely regional Party at the time, with a small presence in New York state, due largely to Horace Greeley's newspaper and Seward's advocacy.
The ins and outs of why Seward lost to Lincoln's candidacy is an good study in itself; he was by far the better candidate, both in temperament and political beliefs. Fremont was their first because he was the most nationally famous, and also had roots in Missouri, but he lost, so Lincoln was chosen because most of their base was in the Midwestern states, AKA the 'Old Northwest'.

 

[Picaro]

No, NYC did not almost secede: such is incorrect verbosity.

This is indeed new, Jake; you should run around to every History dept. in the country and alert them to this, since you're the only one who seems to know it didn't almost secede. You would be a hero. When is your book on this coming out? It will be a must read.

You believe in nonsense. NYC did not "almost secede." There is no historical evidence for it. You, as most neophytes may, mistake the bitter Irish dislike as Democrats and anti-black in sentiment for seceding. If you are saying they opposed the war effort, you are correct. But there was no almost secession attempts.

And again Jake astounds us with hitherto unknown 'facts', or astounding ignorance. Publish your new info for this brand new historical revisionism, Jake; there's a Pulitzer in it if you can sell it.

Hint for the Peanut Gallery: The only thing that stopped the secession movement in NYC, and the smaller movements elsewhere in the mid-Atlantic and New England states, was the news from England that the southern states' delegations were negotiating to send their goods to Europe directly from southern ports, bypassing the northern maritime states' total monopoly on shipping from the U.S. to Europe at the time, and also allowing New Orleans and southern shipping interests a huge advantage on the Mississippi River network trade, as the southern tariffs would be far lower than the northern ones. Thus almost overnight the big Democratic Party money in NYC did an 180 degree turn and wanted war even more than most Republicans did, and became Lincoln's biggest allies as far as war and big subsidies for big business went.

 

[Pogo]

No, NYC did not almost secede: such is incorrect verbosity.

This is indeed new, Jake; you should run around to every History dept. in the country and alert them to this, since you're the only one who seems to know it didn't almost secede. You would be a hero. When is your book on this coming out? It will be a must read.

You believe in nonsense. NYC did not "almost secede." There is no historical evidence for it. You, as most neophytes may, mistake the bitter Irish dislike as Democrats and anti-black in sentiment for seceding. If you are saying they opposed the war effort, you are correct. But there was no almost secession attempts.

And again Jake astounds us with hitherto unknown 'facts', or astounding ignorance. Publish your new info for this brand new historical revisionism, Jake; there's a Pulitzer in it if you can sell it.

Hint for the Peanut Gallery: The only thing that stopped the secession movement in NYC, and the smaller movements elsewhere in the mid-Atlantic and New England states, was the news from England that the southern states' delegations were negotiating to send their goods to Europe directly from southern ports, bypassing the northern maritime states' total monopoly on shipping from the U.S. to Europe at the time, and also allowing New Orleans and southern shipping interests a huge advantage on the Mississippi River network trade, as the southern tariffs would be far lower than the northern ones. Thus almost overnight the big Democratic Party money in NYC did an 180 degree turn and wanted war even more than most Republicans did, and became Lincoln's biggest allies as far as war and big subsidies for big business went.

Tensions regarding economic power between the beginning-to-industrialize North and the agrarian South had been festering for decades. At least as far back as 1828 during the Quincy Adams administration, South Carolinians were calling for secession over the "Tariff of Abominations", seen as heavily favoring the economic interests of the North (which was still secondary to the South in resources of food production) over Southern ones.

This is why the analysis-bite "the Civil War was fought over slavery" is an oversimplification. The Slavery question was certainly prominent but the economic tensions had already been brewing for a long time independent of it. Arguably since the country was founded.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, NYC did not almost secede: such is incorrect verbosity.

This is indeed new, Jake; you should run around to every History dept. in the country and alert them to this, since you're the only one who seems to know it didn't almost secede. You would be a hero. When is your book on this coming out? It will be a must read.

You believe in nonsense. NYC did not "almost secede." There is no historical evidence for it. You, as most neophytes may, mistake the bitter Irish dislike as Democrats and anti-black in sentiment for seceding. If you are saying they opposed the war effort, you are correct. But there was no almost secession attempts.

And again Jake astounds us with hitherto unknown 'facts', or astounding ignorance. Publish your new info for this brand new historical revisionism, Jake; there's a Pulitzer in it if you can sell it.

Hint for the Peanut Gallery: The only thing that stopped the secession movement in NYC, and the smaller movements elsewhere in the mid-Atlantic and New England states, was the news from England that the southern states' delegations were negotiating to send their goods to Europe directly from southern ports, bypassing the northern maritime states' total monopoly on shipping from the U.S. to Europe at the time, and also allowing New Orleans and southern shipping interests a huge advantage on the Mississippi River network trade, as the southern tariffs would be far lower than the northern ones. Thus almost overnight the big Democratic Party money in NYC did an 180 degree turn and wanted war even more than most Republicans did, and became Lincoln's biggest allies as far as war and big subsidies for big business went.

Picaro is simply confused, because you are using the alt revisionism of CW history. In fact, the Irish in NYC had jobs a plenty with the ramped up government spending and increased business trade through the port. They were mad about the blacks and having to go fight because of the draft, not trades and tariffs. PIcaro would not pass a college history class if he offered his revisionism for grade.

Pogo correctly notes the roles of slavery, tariff, and trade in the discussion.