Andrew Jackson once said, "To suppose that because our Government has been instituted for the benefit of the people it must therefore have the power to do what ever may seem to conduce to the public good is an error into which even honest minds are too apt to fall." As a person who had been admired as “the man of the people”, Jackson’s speech exemplifies the social and economic changes brought about within the states’ governments during and after the development of transportation. His speech, in other words, emphasized how the government, although created for the people, won’t necessarily conform for the public good. The innovations within transportation during the 1800s to late 1840s helped bring about economic and social change in the United …show more content…
Cotton had become an essential crop for both the North and South’s economy and therefore, the need for slaves were ever more crucial. Thus, the desire to chain down their slaves became widespread. For example, an author named James Henry Hammond declared his “The Mudsill Theory”to the Senate, stressing the need for a lower class, essentially for the higher classes to prosper. He states, “In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement.” Such writings for slavery led to the development of southern paternalism. Essentially, southerners hide their brutality against their slaves. It is evident of this ideology in Hammond’s speech as well. He declares that their “slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment among our people, and not too much employment either. Yours (The North/abolitionists) are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily compensated, which may be proved in the most painful manner, at any hour in any street in any of your large towns. Why, you meet more …show more content…
Of course, this was the only aspect that they both shared, -their only affiliation with each other that they both agreed upon- however, they were too dependent on each other. Be that as it may, interdependence was how the economy thrived. For example, there were people called the Lords of Loom and the Lords of Lash. The Lords of Lash, cotton plantation owners of the South, would send their cotton to the Lords of Loom, or factory owners of the North. In turn, textiles would be manufactured and marketed nationwide. At the same time, foreign countries such as Russia, France, and Britain also contributed to the nation’s economy. Thanks to the railroads of the south and the ports of the north, international trade of cotton and textiles had never been so facile. Nevertheless, it was system with it’s faults. In other words, the system of interdependence satisfied the need for a sort of unification of the south and north, but it also organized a road to failure. In the event that cotton becomes scarce, the prosperity will diminish because it triggers a chain reaction. For one thing, if the south can’t provide cotton then the north can’t produce enough textiles. Thus, international trade will be inadequate compared to the economic depression that follows. For example, the panic of 1837