| Diff: |
Content deleted Content added
|
|
| Line 155: |
Line 155: |
|
Mississippi's population grew rapidly due to migration, both voluntary and forced, reaching 791,305 in 1860. Blacks numbered 437,000, making up 55% of the population; they were overwhelmingly enslaved. Cotton production grew from 43,000 bales in 1820 to more than one million bales in 1860, as Mississippi became the leading cotton-producing state. With international demand high, Mississippi and other Deep South cotton was exported to the textile factories of Britain and France, as well as those in [[New York (state)|New York]] and [[New England]]. The Deep South was the major supplier and had strong economic ties with the [[Northeastern United States|Northeast]]. By 1820, half of the exports from New York City were related to cotton. Southern businessmen traveled so frequently to the city that they had favorite hotels and restaurants. |
|
Mississippi's population grew rapidly due to migration, both voluntary and forced, reaching 791,305 in 1860. Blacks numbered 437,000, making up 55% of the population; they were overwhelmingly enslaved. Cotton production grew from 43,000 bales in 1820 to more than one million bales in 1860, as Mississippi became the leading cotton-producing state. With international demand high, Mississippi and other Deep South cotton was exported to the textile factories of Britain and France, as well as those in [[New York (state)|New York]] and [[New England]]. The Deep South was the major supplier and had strong economic ties with the [[Northeastern United States|Northeast]]. By 1820, half of the exports from New York City were related to cotton. Southern businessmen traveled so frequently to the city that they had favorite hotels and restaurants. |
|
|
|
|
|
In Mississippi some modernizers encouraged [[crop diversification]], and production of vegetables and livestock increased, but King Cotton prevailed. Cotton's ascendancy was seemingly justified in 1859, when Mississippi planters were scarcely touched by the financial panic in the North. They were concerned by inflation of the price of slaves but were in no real distress. Mississippi's per capita wealth was well above the U.S. average. The major planters made very large profits, but they invested it on buying more cotton lands and more slaves, which pushed up prices even higher. They educated their children privately, and the state government made little investment in infrastructure. Railroad construction lagged behind that of other states, even in the South. The threat of [[abolitionism|abolition]] troubled planters, but they believed that if needed, the cotton states could secede from the Union, form their own country, and expand to the south in [[Mexico]] and [[Cuba]]. Until late 1860 they never expected a war.<ref>William W. Freehling, ''The Road to Disunion: Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861'' (2007).</ref> |
|
In Mississippi some modernizers encouraged [[crop diversification]], and production of vegetables and livestock increased, but King Cotton prevailed. Cotton's ascendancy was seemingly justified in 1859, when Mississippi planters were scarcely touched by the financial panic in the North. They were concerned by inflation of the price of slaves but were in no real distress. Mississippi's per capita wealth was well above the U.S. average (if you don't account for slaves as people). The major planters made very large profits, but they invested it on buying more cotton lands and more slaves, which pushed up prices even higher. They educated their children privately, and the state government made little investment in infrastructure. Railroad construction lagged behind that of other states, even in the South. The threat of [[abolitionism|abolition]] troubled planters, but they believed that if needed, the cotton states could secede from the Union, form their own country, and expand to the south in [[Mexico]] and [[Cuba]]. Until late 1860 they never expected a war.<ref>William W. Freehling, ''The Road to Disunion: Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861'' (2007).</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
The relatively low population of the state before the Civil War reflected the fact that much of the state was still frontier and needed many more settlers for development. For instance, except for riverside settlements and plantations, 90% of the Mississippi Delta bottom lands were still undeveloped and covered mostly in mixed forest and swampland. These areas were not cleared and developed until after the war. During and after Reconstruction, most of the new owners in the Delta were [[freedmen]], who bought the land by clearing it and selling off timber.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=s1hfSMdOLrkC&dq=Forgotten+Time:+The+Yazoo-Mississippi+Delta+after+the+Civil+War&source=gbs_navlinks_s John C. Willis, ''Forgotten Time: The Yazoo-Mississippi Delta after the Civil War'']. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2000</ref> |
|
The relatively low population of the state before the Civil War reflected the fact that much of the state was still frontier and needed many more settlers for development. For instance, except for riverside settlements and plantations, 90% of the Mississippi Delta bottom lands were still undeveloped and covered mostly in mixed forest and swampland. These areas were not cleared and developed until after the war. During and after Reconstruction, most of the new owners in the Delta were [[freedmen]], who bought the land by clearing it and selling off timber.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=s1hfSMdOLrkC&dq=Forgotten+Time:+The+Yazoo-Mississippi+Delta+after+the+Civil+War&source=gbs_navlinks_s John C. Willis, ''Forgotten Time: The Yazoo-Mississippi Delta after the Civil War'']. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2000</ref> |
|
My commment is true. The statistics ignore that african americans were not treated as people in the per capita (ie per "person") wealth. It is offensive that the data is presented in such a way.