The idea that the South would've modernized faster without Reconstruction is just wrong

I keep seeing people say the South would've built industry on its own after the Civil War, but look at Brazil after slavery ended in 1888 - they didn't have reconstruction and their economy stayed agricultural for another 50 years. Without federal investment in railroads and schools during the 1870s, the South would've stayed a cotton patch until at least 1930. Has anyone here actually looked at GDP numbers from Mississippi in 1880 vs 1900?

3 comments

3 Comments

jason_lewis316d ago

Yeah @ray356 nailed it, Brazil's a perfect example.

ray35617d ago

Man, that Brazil comparison is interesting. I was watching a show about old plantations down there and it was wild how little changed for a hundred years. It just seems like without someone forcing the issue, nobody was gonna give up that cotton money willingly.

mark_carr716d ago

Hang on, is this really the argument people are making... I mean, slavery just ended in Brazil and they were basically the same for a century, but that's one country a whole continent away. Comparing the US South to Brazil feels like comparing apples to oranges honestly, different politics, different population, different everything. Plus, those GDP numbers from Mississippi in 1880 are pretty rough estimates anyway, they just don't have the data we do now. Maybe the South would've modernized slower, but saying they were stuck until 1930 without any outside help is a pretty big guess. Seems like people are making it out to be more of a sure thing than it really is.

-1