I would agree that the Union states did not engage in warfare due to altruism. I don’t think any country starts a war with another to make things better there. The idea that the southern states had a stronger economy is simply not true. It sounded like some “War of Northern aggression/Lost cause” DoC propaganda. I wasn’t sure, but I figured I better speak up.
I appreciate your input, one article isn’t enough to convince me just like one book isn’t. But you’ve opened up a train of thought I’ll want to explore further for sure.
Well, just consider in general, the Union was fielding mostly “American made” equipment, like Springfield rifles, while the CSA was using imported firearms like the Enfield. Confederate Uniforms were much more basic, most of the time just being a Gray coat, and the remaining equipment was frequently provisioned by the soldier themselves, meanwhile the Union could afford to equip their soldiers with a consistent Uniform. In the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimack, the Union Monitor was a purpose built Ironclad warship, and the Merrimack was a refit, essentially a regular ship with a bunch of iron plating slapped on it. Off the top of my head, those are some pretty compelling, well-known examples that show the difference in economies and production capabilities.
I hear you, but I don’t think that’s the lens of the time prior to the war. Going back to the books it looks like my simplified sentence mischaracterized and oversimplify what was going on. Northern industry was struggling to move into the South and replace slave labor, to again oversimplify due to initial CapEx and supplanting one caste system for another.
So we’re making different arguments and talking past one another to an extent.
The North’s problem was more like Chiquita banana’s problem with Guatemala.
I would agree that the Union states did not engage in warfare due to altruism. I don’t think any country starts a war with another to make things better there. The idea that the southern states had a stronger economy is simply not true. It sounded like some “War of Northern aggression/Lost cause” DoC propaganda. I wasn’t sure, but I figured I better speak up.
I appreciate your input, one article isn’t enough to convince me just like one book isn’t. But you’ve opened up a train of thought I’ll want to explore further for sure.
Well, just consider in general, the Union was fielding mostly “American made” equipment, like Springfield rifles, while the CSA was using imported firearms like the Enfield. Confederate Uniforms were much more basic, most of the time just being a Gray coat, and the remaining equipment was frequently provisioned by the soldier themselves, meanwhile the Union could afford to equip their soldiers with a consistent Uniform. In the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimack, the Union Monitor was a purpose built Ironclad warship, and the Merrimack was a refit, essentially a regular ship with a bunch of iron plating slapped on it. Off the top of my head, those are some pretty compelling, well-known examples that show the difference in economies and production capabilities.
I hear you, but I don’t think that’s the lens of the time prior to the war. Going back to the books it looks like my simplified sentence mischaracterized and oversimplify what was going on. Northern industry was struggling to move into the South and replace slave labor, to again oversimplify due to initial CapEx and supplanting one caste system for another.
So we’re making different arguments and talking past one another to an extent.
The North’s problem was more like Chiquita banana’s problem with Guatemala.