Tag: History

  • The English East India Company (EIC):  Trade with Asia

    The English East India Company (EIC): Trade with Asia


    The Mughal emperor Shah Alam hands a scroll to Robert Clive, the governor of Bengal, which transferred tax collecting rights in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa to the East India Company. Illustration: Benjamin West (1738–1820)/British Library

    INTRODUCTION

     

    The English East India Company (EIC) was an innovative new type of corporation. It is a model for the modern limited-liability, stockholder-funded modern corporation.


    The EIC also illustrates that the prototype of the modern multinational corporation was created to develop global trade.

     

    HISTORIC BACKGROUND

     

    The creation of the English East India Company (EIC) and its Dutch equivalent (the VOC) were part of the 400-year expansion of European power, trade, and influence. Much of the rest of the world became colonies, part of imperial empires.


    By 1600, both England and Holland had a wealthy merchant and shipping class, bankers, substantial liquid capital (wealth) not tied up in land, and risk-takers. These categories overlapped.


    Both countries had limited monarchies. In England, the king and Parliament were about to begin a long struggle for power. In Holland, the monarch was mostly subservient to Holland’s powerful and wealthy merchant class.


    THE EIC: STRUCTURE AND STRATEGY


    The East India Company (EIC) was chartered in 1600 by Queen Elizabeth I to promote and monopolize English trade with Asia. England, a poor country in the 1600s but with colonial ambitions after defeating the Spanish Armada in 1588, outsourced its colonial ambitions to the East India Company and other private companies. 

     

    The East India Company was originally privately funded by 218 merchants and other investors. It was the first modern multinational corporation. The EIC was a joint stock company, that is, a company with publicly traded stock bought and sold in a secondary stock market. Like modern companies, the EIC issued financial reports, held annual meetings for stockholders, and had quarterly meetings of the Board of Directors.


    It was also a limited liability corporation. Stockholders’ potential personal financial loss was limited to their investment in the company. Creditors could not go after their personal assets.

     

    The EIC was vertically integrated. The company designed, built and repaired its own ships, built its own docks and warehouses in London and in India. It had a large corporate headquarters in London. The company held sales auctions of its imports in its headquarters. It was a major employer in London. It was an “enlightened” employer, offering fringe benefits, including pensions. It provided a retirement home in London for sailors.

     

    The EIC designed and built a new type of ship, called East India Indiaman. They were built for long-distance trade. Because of commercial rivalry with other European states and local hostilities in Asia, EIC merchant ships were heavily armed and often contained marines.


    East India Company Indiaman Armed Merchant Ship

     ©National Maritime Museum


    The EIC had to build forts to protect its warehouses and trading stations. It hired a mercenary army and develop a navy (Bombay Marine) to protect property and trade routes. It negotiated with local rulers and signed treaties. 

     

    In short, the company built its own self-contained infrastructure and pursued its independent strategies. 

     

    The company ran its own management training programs and military academy. The selection process of employees was highly competitive, including written exams. Many of its recruits were ambitious young men from the lower and middle classes who were barred from the traditional paths of upward mobility and status. It employed “foreigners,” Scots and Anglo-Irish. Later, the EIC employed Asians and Anglo-Indians in secondary positions.

     

    Economists have a warm spot in their hearts (yes, economists do have hearts) because the EIC was the first organization to employ and pay economists – Thomas Robert Malthus, James Mill, and his son John Stuart. John Stuart Mill was effectively the CEO for many years. Contrary to their economic writings, they did not support free trade with Asian countries. 

     

    EIC “officers” and employees were loyal to the EIC. They saw personal opportunities and advancement within the company. They had opportunities for personal power and wealth that were not available at home. Because of their lower class origins and nationality, wealthy returning EIC officers were often resented as upstarts.

     

    The EIC created a powerful lobbying group in England. The company attempted to get the English government to continue to support its monopoly on English trade with Asia. Important politicians and royal officials were bribed.

     

    Unlike other private trading and colonization corporations established in England at about the same time, the EIC was set up as primarily an importing company. The company had the problem of how to pay for products bought in Asia. English exports to Asia such as English woolens were in limited demand. Asian sellers wanted silver. This created a drain of silver out of England, which was a source of friction between the company and the government.


     

    CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

     

    Besides the English-Asian trade, the East India Company was willing to trade anywhere in Asia, looking for profitable opportunities. Its resources, both ships and men, were highly mobile.

     

    The EIC operated in a violent, insecure environment in Asia. Beside pirates and local conflicts with Asian rulers, England was usually at war with one or more European countries. The conflicts extended to trade rivalry in Asia. The EIC had to fight battles with other national trading companies, foremost of which was the Dutch East India Company (VOC, the initials of the Dutch name of the company). The EIC could not expect much support from England, which was unable to consistently project power in Asia until the 1800s.

     

    The EIC lost out to the Dutch East India Company in its attempts to control the Spice Islands, the source of much of the profitable spice trade. The EIC also lost its footholds in Java and nearly islands, which became the Dutch East Indies (later Indonesia) controlled by the VOC. 

     

    Many early trading stations failed in other parts of Asia. Eventually, operations were centered on trading ports (entrepots) and stations in India, the traditional transit area for Asian products bound for the Middle East and Europe. India was also an important source of pepper.

     

    The EIC was caught up in the Seven Years War (1756-1763) between England and France for dominance in Europe, North America (called French and Indian War in America), the West Indies, and India. The EIC, under the leadership of Robert Clive, was able to defeat the French in India and expand alliances with many local rulers. The company’s well-organized military assets with superior firepower made the company a prized ally for local rulers. In exchange, the company was given extensive privileges including the right to collect taxes.

     

    At the same time, the company was developing what would be its most important trade – importing Chinese tea to England. To support this trade, the EIC established new stations that would grow to be Singapore and Hong Kong.


    They immediately ran into an old problem – China didn’t want any English imports. Chinese merchants only wanted silver, which led to a major drain of silver out of England. The EIC solved the problem by growing and selling opium produced in India to private traders who smuggled it into China. Some of the financial transactions were handled by a bank that eventually became HSBC.  (One the traders was Franklin D. Roosevelt’s grandfather.) 

     

    Chinese attempts to ban this trade resulted in a war between China and England (the Opium War, 1839-1842). China was defeated by superior English warships; the subsequent treaty was the first of many that opened up China to foreign influence and then domination. This would have important long-run consequences.


    The demand for tea exploded in the 1700s. The EIC had trouble fulfilling the demand with tea from China. Growing and processing tea was a closely guarded secret in China. But the company smuggled out plants to start new tea plantations in northern India (Assam). These plantations were successful and an increasing source of tea for the EIC. By 1770, EIC exports of Indian tea to England reached £800,000.



    ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE, CONTROL, AND GOVERNANCE





    Besides the EIC’s legal, financial, and governance structures which were innovative, the EIC had an internal management and control structure very much like a modern multinational corporation. It had to find a balance between home office control and branch management initiative. Given the problems of long distances, slow communication, and changing local operational information, the company was forced into a decentralized structure. 


    The Board of Governors combined the oversight of corporate managers with the setting of governing rules and regulations. Much of their control was financial. There was also detailed supervision and control of the voyages sent out from England.


    While officers of the company often sent detailed instructions about policy to local managers, direct operational control was difficult. It often took over two months for a letter from London to reach India. Local managers had discretion to react to local problems and trading opportunities. They had their own staff and resources. They were similar to “divisional” managers of early railroads and large industrial corporations. Even more similar to corporate presidents and their local staffs of national subsidiaries of multinational corporations.


     

    THE EVOLUTION OF THE EIC FROM A GLOBAL TRADING COMPANY TO A VIRTUAL SOVEREIGN STATE

                                        

    The painting above shows the moment when the EIC began its evolution from profit-making global trading company to de facto sovereign state. The year was 1765. The Mughal emperor was forced to turn over tax collection in Bengal and two other states

    to the EIC.


    It was at this moment that the East India Company (EIC) ceased to be a conventional corporation, trading in silks and spices, and became something much more unusual. Within a few years, 250 company clerks backed by the military force of 20,000 locally recruited Indian soldiers had become the effective rulers of Bengal. An international corporation was transforming itself into an aggressive colonial power.


        William Dalrumple, The Guardian, “The East India Company:  The Original Corporate Raiders,” March 4, 2015.


    The EIC was profitable in its early years. The EIC started its evolution from a purely private commercial company to an organization with its own substantial political and governmental responsibilities. For almost 100 years after the Seven Years War, it governed much of India from Bombay (Mumbai), Calcutta (Kolkata) and Madras (Chennai). The large areas around company headquarters in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras were also effectively ruled by the company, often through “concessions” offered by regional rulers.

     

    The company performed the major functions of a government – collected taxes, funded a military, made laws and regulations, and established a national bureaucracy. Many of its officers became rich because of IPOs (Indian Political Opportunities – aka bribes, private deals, kickbacks on contracts). Stockholders back in London just wanted profits but EIC officials in India saw the personal possibilities as tax collectors and political administrators.

     

    As the EIC evolved from a commercial venture to ruling much of India, it became unprofitable almost from the beginning. By 1773, low tax revenue partly due to famines contribute to £1.5 million in debt and a £1 million unpaid tax bill owed to the English government. The company asked for a large loan, over £1 million from the Bank of England, but received only £200,000. 


    This began many rounds of negotiation between the EIC and the English government. The company began borrowing large sums of money from the English government. In the early 1800s, the company exchanged loans from Parliament for government over-site and military support. Parliament stripped the EIC of its trading monopolies between Asia and England. Finally, after the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny, the English government took over overall management and supervision of the company and then annexed India as a British colony.  

     

    The EIC also came into conflict with the English government when the government tried to impose mercantilist goals on the company. The government, under pressure from its woolen textile industry and then the new English cotton textile mills, banned the company from exporting competing Indian cotton goods (calicos) into England. India cotton, not cotton textiles, was exported to England. India became a large market for the export of English cotton goods.

     

    The EIC start out as a profit-seeking trading company and ended up ruling much of the Indian subcontinent. The costs of administering India would eventually contribute to bankrupting the company; it was forced to turn over the rule of India to the English government.   

     

    The home nation-states such as England were becoming more powerful and were able to project power and influence globally. They did not need private trading monopolies to further mercantilist or economic goals.

    CONJECTURE

    This conjecture is a bridge to the next essay on the EIC :

    The English East India Company:  Model for Future Multinational Corporations?

     

    In 1765, the EIC took over the running of a large territory in India – policing, military, tax collection, and administration. By 1772, it would deeply in debt and needed a large bailout from the English government. They gave it. It was followed by subsequent bailouts until the English government finally took over the EIC after the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny.  Why? Why not take it over earlier?

     

    Subsidizing EIC was the least bad option.  In 1763, England completed its victory over France. It was the third war with France in the 1700s. England was deeply in debt. As a result of incredible stupidity, England had to commit naval and army assets to control the restless American colonies. The English navy also had to protect the sugar islands in the West Indies, and to its primary task of securing the English Channel. It did not have the military assets to commit halfway around the world to India. It was not necessary – The EIC had a private army of over 20,000 troops that grew to 260,000 in the early 1800s, plus a heavily-armed merchant maring, as the EIC took over governing most of India. This number was far larger than the English army.

     

    Ten years after the EIC became sovereign in Bengal, the American Revolution broke out. England sent a large part of its army and about half of its navy to quell the revolt. After a few years, when English officers realized the cause of subduing the colonies was hopeless, some of the assets were withdrawn but sent to the West Indies. England withdraw its armed forces from America in 1783. Ten years later England was at war with France; the war, mostly with Napoleon, lasted 22 years. At the end, England was deeply in debt.

     

    With the loss of the American colonies, India was the foundation of the British Empire. Although losing money, the EIC was responsible for generating nearly half of England global trade. India was a major market for English exports. Quite simply, the EIC was England’s surrogate colonial masters in Asia. It was cheaper to subsidize the EIC than to take over direct governing of India.

     

    Another reason was that the EIC have bribed government ministers and members of Parliament. Returning EIC personnel, often personally wealthy, also formed a strong lobbying group in England.

     

    But after four decades of peace in Europe and reducing its public debt, England was ready to begin governing India and projecting imperial power throughout Asia.

    ======================================================


    One starting point of reading about the East India Company is:

    K.N.Chaudhuri, The English East India Company:  The Study of an Early Joint Stock Company, 1600-1640, Frank Cass & Co Ltd, London, 1965.

    For the historical background and context on the EIC, and its role in helping England become a global economic and political power in the 1600s, see

    England in the 1600s:  The Beginning of England’s Rise to Global Power and Wealth

    For the argument that the EIC may be a model for future multinational corporations, see

    The English East India Company:  Model for Future Multinational Corporations? 

    Elsewhere in this blog, I argue that the main form of America’s economic competition, and probably geopolitical competition, with China will depend on the success of American companies in developing new technologies and global links. See

     

    American Tariffs and the U.S. Economic War with China

    For a case study of a country that became independent after World War II and illustrates the internal chaos of many countries, see


    Nigeria


    You might also be interested in

    The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Beginning of the Great Depression


    In the 1920s, the United States developed new technologies in virtual isolation from the rest of the world. It didn’t end well.

     

    For a list of all the posts on this blog, see List of Posts by Topic

    with links to all other posts. There are posts on Adam Smith, the Beginning of the Industrial Revolution, American Economic History, American History and even economics.



  • A New Nation:  America from 1789 to 1860

    A New Nation: America from 1789 to 1860

     

    Earliest known photograph of slaves and cotton, around 1850
    Brigit Katz, Smithsonian Magazine, December 6, 2019

    A New Nation, America from 1789 to 1860

    If you study American history from 1789 to 1860 (just before the start of the Civil War), the political history is very complicated. But remember what caused most of these political conflicts and uneasy compromises – the dynamic changes in the underlying economy. Two in particular – the spectacular increase in slave-produced cotton and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. They were related.

     

    What is the Industrial Revolution? At its heart it is power-driven metal machinery producing huge quantities of goods. At first, the power was supplied by steam engines and water wheels. Later, in the 20th century, electricity. All of this used huge amounts of fossil fuels – first coal, later oil and natural gas were added. America had huge quantities of all three.

     

    A trend that continued from colonial times was the rapid population growth of America. This is part of demographics, the study of populations. America has had spectacular population growth throughout its history, from 4 million people in 1790 to 30 million in 1860 to over 330 million today. Two reasons for this growth were high birth rates, and open immigration until 1924. Also, Americans tended to be healthier than the people in other countries, mostly because of plentiful food. This is an important part of the American story, as discussed in the essay on colonial history. 

     

    There are lots of numbers when you talk about demographics, economic growth, and the Industrial Revolution. I’ll try to keep them to a minimum, hopefully just the more important ones. I also round up numbers to make them easier to read.

     

    The New Government, 1789-1798 

    After the Constitution was ratified and the structure of the new government was established, Americans voted in their first elected representatives in 1789. George Washington was elected president. He appointed Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State (in charge of foreign affairs) and Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury (financial affairs). James Madison, who wrote the first draft of the Constitution, became Speaker of the House of Representatives and established the structure and procedures in the House that are still used today.

     

    The government faced many of the problems left over from the Revolution. Because of the fight with the British army, Americans did not want a large standing (permanent) army.  They saw a permanent army as a threat to their liberties. America could do this because there was no serious threat on the American continent. Also, they didn’t want to get involved in European wars and political conflicts. “No entangling alliances” as Washington said. This foreign policy was possible because America was separated from Europe by the 3,000 miles of the Atlantic Ocean. 

     

    This was not to be. What happened in Europe during this period would have a profound impact on American history.

     

    The same year the U.S. government began, the French Revolution broke out. The French revolutionaries used similar ideas as the Americans. They wanted to destroy the power of the French king and the aristocracy. In 1793, they beheaded the king and queen of France and thousands of others. The other countries of Europe – all with kings or queens – were appalled. They declared war on France. One of the countries was England. England would fight France, off and on, until 1815.

     

    France was taken over by Napoleon. He would fight until he eventually lost in 1815. Wars are expensive and Napoleon needed money. France had laid claim to part of America. But Napoleon, fighting large wars in Europe, knew he could not defend the land from west-moving Americans. In 1803, he offered the land to America. President Jefferson bought it for $11 million. It was called the Louisiana Purchase. It was the land between the Mississippi River and the Rockies. It doubled the size of the United States. 


    After Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase, he established the Corps of Discovery to find out the geography of what he bought. The Corps first leaders were Meriwether Lewis (Jefferson’s secretary) and William Clark. Their famous expedition of 1804-06 traveled through the northern part of the new territory, including exploring the Missouri River. This was important for the future. America had more miles of navigable rivers than any other country. With the invention of the steamship, America had a vast internal transportation system that would help join the regional economies of the country together. Unfortunately, one of the region’s economy was based on slavery.

     

    Hamilton and Financing the Government 

    All governments must raise money to pay for government activities. But the U.S. government was limited in how it could raise money. The Constitution said the government could not tax American exports. No income taxes. The attempt to put a tax on goods, especially whiskey, led to riots and demonstrations that threatened the new government. What was left? Some revenue came in from land sales but not enough. Hamilton was given the task to solve this problem.

     

    He was ready. He started life as a teenager working for a merchant in the Caribbean. After the Revolution, he spent years studying the history and workings of government finance. His options were limited but he came up with a brilliant (and controversial) plan. He would tax imports.

     

    There was a larger problem. The currency issued during the Revolution (called Continentals) was worthless. The new government had to establish creditability which included faith in any new currency. Hamilton’s idea was to buy back the Continentals at face value. In exchange, the government would issue government bonds that paid interest and could be redeemed (sold back to the government) in the future. The bonds could also be traded like money. How to pay for them? From the revenue that came from taxing imports. Hamilton figured that tariffs on imports would cover government expenses and the cost of redeeming the bonds. He was right.

     

    I believe this was part of a larger plan he had. Hamilton saw the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. He believed that manufacturing would be part of an economically strong country, as was beginning to happen in England.

     

    In 1791, Hamilton helped found the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures (S.U.M.), to harness the waterfall energy of the the Great Falls of the Passaic RiverThe society founded Paterson, New Jersey, which became an early site of the industrial revolution in America. The Great Falls would provide tremendous energy to drive many large water wheels that powered machinery. Paterson was America’s first industrial city and would be a major manufacturing center for over 150 years.

     

    Hamilton’s grand plan:

    ·      Tax imports to raise revenue for the American government.

    ·      Develop domestic manufacturing to produce substitutes for English manufactured goods exported to America.

    ·      Use manufacturing to drive American economic development and growth in addition to agriculture.

    ·      Develop a class of manufacturers, bankers, and merchants.

     

    Hamilton’s vision was bitterly opposed by Jefferson and most Americans who thought about America’s future. Jefferson, when he was ambassador to France, saw the negative side of the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in France and England. Dirty, crowded cities. Pollution. A degraded industrial labor force. Banking and finance. He saw all of this as a threat to a democracy based on independent, land-owning farmers.

     

    These two different visions of the future would be the basis of later bitter political conflicts.

     

    Slavery and Cotton

    The issue of slavery was mostly ignored at the national level in the early years. It was left to the individual states.

     

    Some people like Jefferson hoped that slavery would be unprofitable and wither away. This was not entirely wishful thinking.

     

    Importing slaves became illegal at the end of 1807. The Virginia and Maryland tobacco industry, the largest user of slaves, was in permanent decline after the American Revolution. Planters turned to diversified agriculture, including grain crops like wheat and fruit orchards. It was not obvious that the same number of slaves were needed or that owning and supporting slaves was profitable in the new environment. All this changed with the English demand for cotton. The deep south had a huge area of some of the best cotton land in the world. Many Virginia and Maryland tobacco planters, who owned half the slaves in America in 1790, moved to the deep south, bringing their slaves with them. Other slave owners sold some of their slaves, who were transported down the Mississippi River and sold to the cotton growers. This is where the phrase “sold down the river” came from. 

     

    It is one of the great ironies of history that the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England was responsible for the survival and expansion of slavery in America. The first large industry in England was the power-driven mechanical production of cotton cloth. This created a huge and growing demand for cotton. Production of cotton cloth exploded after the war with French ended in 1815. It turned out that the largest and best growing area for the type of cotton that was best for machine production was in the American South.

     

    Cotton Production, 1790-1860

    Small amounts of cotton had been planted and cultivated in the United States since before the American Revolution, mostly in the islands off the coast of South Carolina and Georgia. But there was a bottleneck to the rapid expansion of cotton growing. After the cotton was picked, the fibers had to be separated from the seeds. This was done by hand. Only about one pound of clean cotton could be produced per day. But, in 1793, a Connecticut mechanic name Eli Whitney was invited by a Yale classmate to visit his mother, Nathanael Greene’s widow in Georgia. He listened to the complaints of the local cotton growers. After tinkering for a few weeks, he invented an improved cotton gin. This was a fairly simple, hand-operated machine that could produce about seven pounds of cotton per day. Further improvements increased output to about 50 pounds per day. By 1860, there were large power-driven cotton ginning factories.

     

    Cotton planting expanded to the west very dramatically after 1815—all the way to Texas. Planters, growers, and slaves moved from the Eastern Seaboard throughout the South and then to the Mississippi River region. Planters who owned slaves took them with them, thus avoiding the largest cost of starting a large cotton plantation. 

     

    The growth in cotton production was spectacular. Only about 1.5 million pounds were produced in 1790. Then, after the invention of Whitney’s cotton gin, output increased to 85 million pounds in 1810. By 1840, output rose to 830 million pounds, 10 times that of 1810. In 1860, the South produced the largest crop ever – over 2 billion pounds. 

     

    It was by far the nation’s main export, accounting for about 60% of the value of total American exports. Cotton exports helped pay for the imports of machinery and iron rails. 


    The South was producing about 2/3 of the world’s supply of cotton. 

     

    What led to an expansion of slavery was the unexpected huge increase in demand for cotton, first in England and then in the cotton mills of New England. Cotton was grown elsewhere but nowhere could a growing region produce the large and rapidly increasing amount of the type of cotton that manufactures demanded. This was made possible by the large increase in the slave population through natural increase, even after importing slaves was banned. By 1860, a very high percent of the slave population was growing, processing, and distributing cotton.

     

    Railroads, 1830-1860

    Starting in the 1830s, America built a large railroad network.

     

    America began building railroads in the 1830s, right after England built the first general-purpose railroad in 1830. By 1850, there was 8,600 miles of track. Then came a railroad-building boom. By 1860, there was 30,800 miles of track. America had by far more miles of track than any other country. New York had the most miles of track, followed by Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. The southern states had about 1/3 of the total trackage.

     

    Railroad locomotives and tracks were a huge spur to iron production and manufacturing. Railroads were able to move large quantities of output (and people) from one region to another. 


    The Key to America’s Early Industrial Success

    America had abundant natural resources and aggressive “go-ahead” entrepreneurs. America also had poor immigrants who would form part of the new industrial work force. But what really drove industrialization was a new way to manufacture output.

    Thomas Jefferson was ambassador to France where he learned about an experiment to manufacture interchangeable parts to produce guns. He brought this idea to America and it was developed in America’s two armories at Springfield, Mass and Harper’s Ferry, Virginia.  It took thirty years to perfect the system.

    Interchangeable parts means that all produced units of a part are almost exactly alike. If a part of the firing mechanism of a gun had to be replaced, any substitute part would fit in without the former necessity of filing it down, fitting it, and repeating the process until it fit. This also meant that a factory could produce large numbers of all the parts and assemble the final product from any one of the parts. This system was be used to revolutionize the production of sewing machines, clocks, other metal products, and later bicycles and autos.

     

    The Economic Integration of the Three Regions

    The three regions of the American economy were becoming economically integrated but politically divided over the issue of slavery. America’s first large industry was also cotton cloth production in New England, with its own demand for Southern cotton. About 75% of Southern cotton was exported and 25% went to New England mills. Much of the cotton cloth output was used to make cheap clothing for slaves. The shoe factories of New England made most of the shoes worn by slaves. Southern families bought home furnishings from Northern factories. In addition, much of the cotton trade was financed by Northern bankers. Most exports went through New York. Southern planters borrowed large amounts of money from Northern bankers to expand production by buying more land and more slaves.

     

    Politicians and commentators debated the future of America. What no one foresaw was that these three parts of the economy of America were going to be connected.

     

    What would tie the three regions together was the transportation revolution, based on high pressure steam engines that drove railroad locomotives and steamboats. Steamboats exploited the largest system of navigable rivers in the world.

     

    Southern railroads and steamships brought cotton to Southern ports. By 1860, there were about 800 steamboats on the Mississippi River. Ships, first sailing ships, later supplemented by steam ships, carried the cotton to New York. Transatlantic ships carried the cotton to England, mostly to Liverpool.

     

    Northern farm families streamed into Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois in search of new farmland. These states had the biggest increase in population between 1850 and 1860. These farmers produced food for the increased population of Eastern cities and for exports. Produce went to market first through canals and then mostly by rail. Beside moving cotton to market, the greatly increase speed and capacity of railroad brought Western grain east and manufactured goods west. The new Western farms also supplied corn and pork to the Southern plantations, much of it sent south on Mississippi steamboats.

     

    By 1860, America had three sources of economic growth:

     

    Expansion of agriculture based on population growth, unlimited land for independent farmers, and westward expansion. 

     

    Expansion of slave-based cotton production. By 1860, Mississippi produced the most cotton, followed by Alabama and Louisiana.

     

    By 1860, the Industrial Revolution in Americas was well on its way. More money was invested in cotton mills than in any other industry. The second largest manufacturing industry was the iron industry.

     

    To the Civil War 

    The issue of slavery was the main cause of most of the political battles during this period, including the annexation of Texas and the war with Mexico to make Texas a slave state. There was a rise of anti-slavery sentiment in the North and West. Arguments were increasingly made for the abolition of slavery. There was effective propaganda, like Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book Uncle Tom’s Cabin. In response, the Southern defense of slavery became fierce – no compromises. Slave ownership and cotton production became the basis of the economy, political power, society, and culture of the South. 

     

    There was a danger to the expansion of cotton production and slavery as more new states in the future would be “free soil” (no slavery) states than new slave states. The South would lose political power in the national government and might be threatened with the abolition of slavery. Arguments on both sides became very emotional. When Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, the South saw him as a threat to the survival of slavery. Although he hated slavery, he did not advocate its elimination. He wanted to stop it spreading to new states. Southern planters believed they needed new land as old cotton lands wore out and produced less cotton per acre. The Civil War – the South’s attempt to leave the union – started even before Lincoln was inaugurated. 

     

    The 1860 Census – the United States on the Eve of the Civil War 

    Total population – 31.4 million

    White population – just under 27 million (86%)

    Slave population – just under 4 million (13%)

    Free blacks – just under 500,000 (1.6%)

           Does not exactly equal 100% because of rounding

     

    Number of whites in the South – 5,800,000. This is the number of whites in the South in states that left the United States in the Civil War.

     

    Number of whites in the North – 21,200,000. This includes slave states that did not leave the Union in the Civil War.

     

    By 1860, despite continuing immigration, most Americans were native-born. Of the 27 million whites, about 4 million were foreign-born. Just under 75% of the immigrants during this period came from Ireland (because of the famine) and the German States (Germany did not become a unified country until 1871). Of the black Americans, almost all were native-born since the Constitution prohibited importing slaves after 1807. 

     

    Remember there were about 700,000 slaves in 1790. Most of the increase came from the high birth rates in the number of slaves.

     

    There were more slaves than whites in Mississippi and South Carolina. Slaves made up at least 40% of the total population in Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana (almost 50%).

     

    Almost 400,000 white families owned slaves. But most of them were owned by a small percent of the slave-owners. About 280,000 whites owned fewer than 10 slaves. At the other end, about 11,000 whites owned 50 slaves or more; 14 of them owned 500 slaves or more.


    At the beginning of this period, slavery was legal in all 13 colonies. But the ideals of the American Revolution motivated some Americans to think about abolishing slavery. By the end of this period, all northern and western states had outlawed slavery. The arguments for and against slavery became more shrill. Some attempts at compromise, as advocated by Abraham Lincoln, were rejected by the south. The essay cited below argues that the Civil War, unlike the American Revolution, was inevitable. 

    =========================================================

    For two essays on earlier periods of American history, see


    American Colonial History, 1607-1775


    Revolution and the New Country:  American History, 1775-1790

    For an analysis of:  Was the Civil War inevitable?, see 

    The American Civil War

    For an example of the transition from using hand tools to power-driven machinery for production, see

    Adam Smith’s Pin Factory

    For an essay focused on the industrialization of America in the same period, see

    The Beginning of the Industrial Revolution in America

    For an analysis of:  Was the Civil War inevitable?, see The American Civil War


    For a list of all essays on this blog, with links, see 


    List of Posts by Topic


    There are more posts on American History and American Economic History. Also essays on Rome and the period surrounding World War I.

    Essays on information, innovation, and how markets work. 

    Essays on business, finance and economics. 

    A series of essays on demographics, population projections, and speculations on how decreasing and aging populations will interact with the economics of individual countries and the global economy.

     

  • Why Study History? Lessons for Americans

    Why Study History? Lessons for Americans

    Thucydides


    A friend of mine recently said that the most “useless” course he took in college was history.

    Let’s start with Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War. This was a war that took place over 2,400 years ago. What possible relevance could it have to Americans?

    In this war, Athens and Sparta, the two “superpowers” of Greece, were locked into a long war for the dominance of Greece. The climax to the story in Thucydides was that Athens decided to send its formidable fleet and much of its army to attack Syracuse, an ally of Sparta, far away across the Mediterranean Sea in Sicily (still there). The campaign was a disaster, leading to political instability at home and weakening Athens’ military position in Greece. Sound familiar? Remind you of our involvement in Vietnam?

    This is not a direct analogy but suggestive of some of the consequences of the Vietnam War. These potential consequences were not factored into the decision to make a major commitment in Vietnam.

    Fortunately, Soviet leaders also didn’t read history and a few years later became bogged down in a similar war in Afghanistan. The consequences were more severe; Russia suffered the same fate as Athens. Arrogant people in power seldom seem to learn from the mistakes of others.

    There was another historical analogy to the war in Vietnam, one we should have known about. The American Revolution.

    The British were a global superpower, having just defeated France for global imperial rule. But France was still a formidable enemy in the main theater of war, Europe. Then the far-away Americans revolted. On paper, the British should have won easily. And they did. After the embarrassment of Boston, England sent a large part of its navy and regular army to deal with the rebels. In the key battle for New York, the British almost annihilated the American Continental Army. Washington barely escaped to Valley Forge with a remnant of his army. Eventually, however, Washington realized a strategic truth. This was not a traditional war. He didn’t have to win battles to win American independence, the goal of the revolt. What he had to do was keep the Continental Army together as a symbol that the revolt was still alive.


    This was essential because for the Americans, as for the Viet Minh, they were not fighting to get a negotiated settlement. This was an “existential” war; either the Americans were going to be free on their own territory or they would suffer under harsh English colonial rule.

    Time was on Washington’s side. There was opposition to the war in England from merchants, manufacturers like Wedgwood, intellectuals (Adam Smith), powerful Whig politicians and even from some top military leaders, including General Lord Cornwallis. Generals and officers who headed the British army in America wrote in their private diaries that the war could not be won.  


    The war was expensive, as most of the navy had to protect long-distance logistic and supply lanes across the Atlantic in addition to blockading the American coast and ferrying the British army around. The longer the American army was in the field, tying down large British military assets, the better the chance that France would deliver the promised aid to the Americans, increasing the chances the American army could survive and become stronger. France supported the American rebels and then entered the war in a big way, contributing to the final victory at Yorktown.

    In the end, the British realized that they would never have enough resources to defeat the Americans or even occupy American territory outside of a few major cities. And there was the strategic danger that major military resources would not available in case of renewed hostilities with France in Europe.

    By 1781, the war had dragged on for six years. An ill-conceived attempt to reestablish British presence in the southern colonies was met with a brilliant campaign of skirmishes and battles where a part of the Continental Army and local militias (and disease) ground down the British force. A classic campaign of guerrilla warfare and attrition. The British goal failed; even if the defeated and diseased remnant of Cornwallis’ army had been successfully sea-lifted out of Yorktown, the war was probably over for the Brits. There was no reason to continue since it was obvious to almost everyone that England didn’t have the will or the resources to put down the revolt. The only move left was to negotiate a peace treaty giving the Americans their independence and refocus on the French.

    If American political leaders in 1964/65 had read Thucydides and understood the historical lessons of the American Revolution better, would they still have made a major commitment in Vietnam? I don’t know. But they might have had a more realistic internal debate on the dynamics and possible outcome of the war.

    Maybe as citizens of the United States we should spend some time tomorrow, the Fourth of July, thinking about or reading some history.


    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Related Posts:

    Some of the topics introduced in this post are discussed in more depth in other posts.


    For more detail on how the American rebels won the American Revolution, see


    Revolution and the New Country:  American History, 1775-1790


    For how the consequences of WWI might have contributed to the American stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression, see

    The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression

    Also see the posts comparing the U.S. and Rome, starting with

    Pax America I:  Washington as an Imperial City


    For an analysis of why the Roman Republic collapsed after becoming a “global” power, see


    The Roman Republic Commits Suicide:  A Cautionary Tale for America

    For a discussion of the short-run and long-run consequences of World War I, see

    The Immediate and Long-Run Historical Consequences of World War I