# 11 of the 12 lowest median household income states were part of the Confederacy. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 14, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649 "2011-10-14T17:12:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/41 "2011-10-16T04:47:15Z")
Thank you, Nemo. I am so very stupid, and you are so very smart. Thanks for setting me straight, I’ll not trouble you again! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![No\_umlaut\_for\_U](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ea5d25/32.png) [@No\_umlaut\_for\_U](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/No_umlaut_for_U)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/42 "2011-10-16T22:04:50Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I see slavery as the root cause of the South’s poverty-to keep the slaves under control, the plantation class kept education away. The lack of an educated labor force made industrialization difficult-and the poverty of the Deep South kept people ignorant. > The whole period of 1865-1920 was one long lost era-the south got poorer and poorer, while the Midwest and North prospered. > The interesting thing was, these trends were evident by 1840 or so-but nobody in the southern state legislatures wanted to reform things. Sort of agreeing here. Segregation kept the Black population in lousy schools. Now the Whites flee to private schools, leaving the public system behind, and the White population doesn’t want to raise taxes to support the schools they don’t use. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/43 "2011-10-16T22:21:07Z")
> [@No\_umlaut\_for\_U](#): > > Sort of agreeing here. Segregation kept the Black population in lousy schools. Now the Whites flee to private schools, leaving the public system behind, and the White population doesn’t want to raise taxes to support the schools they don’t use. I’ll agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Sirreal72](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Sirreal72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sirreal72)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/44 "2011-10-17T20:38:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If only the seceding states had recorded what they thought were the causes for secession. > > Oh wait, [they did](http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html). Four states issued official proclamations of what they thought the issues were. Let’s see what they said.No mention of tariffs. No mention of nullification. No mention of industrialization. No mention about territorial expansion. No mention about religious differences. No mention about cultural differences. > … Hmm… that’s funny, I read that link and I found plenty of mention of tariffs, expansion, industrialzation and a feeling of corruption in the federal government. > [@](#): > > …Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. **The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose**. > … > > The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. **The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests.** Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. Your degrading reference to lighthouses shows you are not reading what is written. The argument is that the Northern states is being enhanced by support from the Federal government (ie. with money from taxes), which is not a equal distribution of resources. (Ie. the southern agricultural states are being shafted. The references you made about the opposition to slavery is taking the writing out of context. The point being made was that anti-slavery proponents were not able to win support with the current political parties and thus formed a new party (the Republican party) to try and gain control of the federal government. The writers were not debating the morality of slavery, they were arguing that the Federal government did not have the authority to limit State rights in this matter, nor could they impose a ban on slavery in the new territories. (Sort of like G. Bush saying he could authorize warrentless wiretaps even tho the Constitution says no such thing. His argument is that it doesn’t say he can’t. Same argument here.) You can disagree with the Confederates all you want, (I certainly don’t agree with a lot of what they said) but you can’t just sum up the Civil War in a simplistic statement like, “It was about slavery.” You didn’t even acurately summerize the document you offered as proof of your argument. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/45 "2011-10-17T21:01:47Z")
Look, you can talk all you want about tarriffs and western expansion and agriculture vs industrialization, but the reason these problems were unresolvable was because of slavery. The southern states seceded because they wanted to preserve slavery. And they could see that the increasing power of the northern states meant that slavery was going to be endangered. And since the entire southern economy and social structure was built on the cornerstone of slavery, that was intolerable. Of course the northerners didn’t oppose slavery because they were enlightened people. And the southerners didn’t support slavery because they were cackling villains out vaudeville. They supported slavery because they made their money by forcing slaves to work. But just because they didn’t support slavery because they enjoyed evil for evil’s sake doesn’t change the fact that slavery is evil. A mugger who beats up and robs old ladies doesn’t do it because he hates old ladies, he does it for money. That doesn’t change the fact that he does, in fact, beat up and rob old ladies. The plantation owner wasn’t a mustache-twirling villain, but his wealth depended on beatings, torture, terror, murder, and rape. So let’s not pat him on the back too hard. ---
**Author:** ![Sirreal72](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Sirreal72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sirreal72)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/46 "2011-10-17T21:11:35Z")
> [@No\_umlaut\_for\_U](#): > > Sort of agreeing here. Segregation kept the Black population in lousy schools. Now the Whites flee to private schools, leaving the public system behind, and the White population doesn’t want to raise taxes to support the schools they don’t use. I’m not sure I can agree here because you are making generalized without proof of causation. If I’m reading you right, you are saying after integration, whites are “fleeing” to private schools… because they don’t want their kids to go to school with blacks? Maybe some people are that bigoted, but isn’t it more likely that parents don’t want their kids to go to “lousy schools”? Everytime a new public school is built in this area (Georgia), the population shifts. People that can afford it are likely to move into that district so their kids can go to the new school. Demographicly speaking, whites have better jobs so more whites move than non-whites.\*\*\* Is this racism, or simply a symptom of inequality?\*\*\* Wealthier blacks can (and do) move to the new schools as well. And the wealthest people can afford private schools. There are no racial prohibitions to any of them that I know, but it’s a fact that you have to have money to go there. Good jobs don’t always require good educations, but a good education can lead to a better job. If there is a lack of good jobs in the South it isn’t because of the population, I’d say it’s more likely do to a lack of infrastructure that would support those jobs. Are there more rail-lines and roads in the North? Access to power supplies? High density population centers (such as cities) to provide workers? One of the largest cities in the South is Atlanta, but it’s more accurate to call it a sprawl… it covers several counties. If you don’t have a car in the south, your job opportunities are more limited. Sometimes the problem causes the situation, and sometimes the situation causes the problem. Worst case senario, they both cause the other in a vicious cycle. ---
**Author:** ![Sirreal72](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Sirreal72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sirreal72)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/47 "2011-10-17T21:47:43Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Look, you can talk all you want about tarriffs and western expansion and agriculture vs industrialization, but the reason these problems were unresolvable was because of slavery. The southern states seceded because they wanted to preserve slavery. And they could see that the increasing power of the northern states meant that slavery was going to be endangered. And since the entire southern economy and social structure was built on the cornerstone of slavery, that was intolerable. > > … > > The plantation owner wasn’t a mustache-twirling villain, but his wealth depended on beatings, torture, terror, murder, and rape. So let’s not pat him on the back too hard. As far as I know, nobody was nominating slaveowners for medals. But what I find hard to believe is that 67% of Southerns would go to war to protect the “property” of the other 33% that owned slaves. (Ok, not 100% of the South fought, nor did 100% of the North. The point is a larger percentage of those fighting for the South were not fighting for their slaves.) Of those that did own slaves, 1% owned 20-30% of them; In other words, the very rich of the time. You acknowledge that the Plantation owners were not the vaudville villains doing evil for evil’s sake, but that they had an economic interest at stake; But what about those that didn’t have an economic reason? Are you saying they were evil? What was\*\* their \*\*motivation? I still say the war was about politics and money. Morality was political justification after the fact for the horrible cost in human lives. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/48 "2011-10-17T22:07:50Z")
> [@Sirreal72](#): > > I still say the war was about politics and money. Correct, the war was about politics and money. The supporters of secession and war in the South convinced a sufficient number of their fellow free Southern citizens to rally to the Southern cause in support of a series of political and economic propositions. Political: > [@](#): > > That in this free government **all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights** ; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. – [A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp) Economic: > [@](#): > > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization… > > We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property… [A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp) (According to [Georgia](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp), it may only have been $3,000,000,000 worth of property. Either way, an enormous sum, even more enormous for the time, and it wasn’t just stored wealth–stacks of gold bars or something–but the productive basis for the entire economy of the Deep South, and of considerable economic importance to the rest of the Southern states.) ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/49 "2011-10-17T22:29:50Z")
> [@](#): > > As far as I know, nobody was nominating slaveowners for medals. But what I find hard to believe is that 67% of Southerns would go to war to protect the “property” of the other 33% that owned slaves. One-third of the electorate is not a small number in a representative democracy. Especially if that one-third has a serious material interest at stake, while the other two-thirds have more abstract philosophical reasons for opposing the interest of the one-third. (The economic commitment of small slaveholders wouldn’t necessarily be any less than that of large slaveholders. I’m sure there were cases of rich bankers who owned a couple of maids and butlers, but a small-scale farmer who owned a slave or two who worked alongside his own family on the farm could have just as strong an economic interest in slavery as the rich plantation owner, in terms of the proportion of that small slaveowner’s assets and economic future.) Add in aspirational interests on the part of the non-slave-owning two-thirds–“I don’t own any slaves _yet_, but someday I will, if those meddling abolitionists don’t screw everything up”. Add in perfectly rational economic interests by the non-slave-owning two-thirds–“I don’t own any slaves, but I make my living providing goods and services to the people who do; if those rich plantation owners are wiped out, I’ll be wiped out with them”. Add in social and political interests–black inequality was presented as a bulwark of white equality; a kind of foundation on which the equality of “all white men” could supposedly rest. Add in the economic fears of poor whites who had no desire to economically compete with freed blacks. Add in racism and racially-based fears–black inequality was presented as natural and Christian and right, and white supremacy as a necessary defense against “savages” running amok and having their way with the daughters of slave-owners and non-slave-owners alike. And of course, especially once the supporters of secession got the South into a shooting war, feelings of patriotism, a desire to not look like a coward to the rest of the community, and all the other reasons why young men go off to fight, all came into play. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/50 "2011-10-17T22:52:59Z")
> [@Sirreal72](#): > > I still say the war was about politics and money. Agreed. The south seceded to preserve the money-making economic engine of the south, namely plantation slave labor. The value of the slaves was in the billions of dollars, in 1865 dollars. Any weakening of slavery would mean economic disaster for every slaveholder. > [@](#): > > Morality was political justification after the fact for the horrible cost in human lives. Again, agreed. There was a great deal of effort expended on showing how slavery was beneficial for the slave, how it was ordained by God, so forth. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/51 "2011-10-17T23:11:47Z")
Mark Twain wrote an essay about the poor southern whites-who took up arms (and died in large numbers) to protect the planation system, that kept them in poverty. The plantation system WAS the problem-it depended upon monoclture (cotton, tobacco) that wore out the soil and produced poverty for the small farmers. It wasn’t ntil the aftermath of the Firts World War, that attitudes in the Deep South began to change. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/52 "2011-10-17T23:50:45Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Under representation in the House of Representatives. > I wonder if there is also a correlation between being a poor state and having missile silos. 🙂 New York and Vermont had the _only_ ICBMs deployed east of the Mississippi River. [Plattsburgh Air Force Base.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattsburgh_Air_Force_Base#Atlas_Missiles) Home of the 556th Strategic Missile Squadron. We were probably underrepresented in 1961, because of our poverty. ;);)😉 ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/53 "2011-10-18T00:09:07Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > At first blush that reason sounds silly. But thinking about it, and being a resident of the deep south myself, I think that may be a much bigger factor than most people would think. That would mean the south was at a significant disadvantage (in addition to all the other problems folks here have listed) until AC became something common rather than a nice to have or a luxury, which occurred in the 70’s give or take? So AC was important? Who do you have to thank for that? [Willis Haviland Carrier](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Carrier), of Buffalo, New York.; :eek:😉 ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/54 "2011-10-18T01:25:51Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Thank you, Nemo. > I am so very stupid, and you are so very smart. > > Thanks for setting me straight, I’ll not trouble you again! > > :rolleyes: You shouldn’t. I could expand greatly on the economic arguments he made, but since you acknowledged that he was right, there’s no point. Nice to see ignorance fought. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/55 "2011-10-18T01:36:34Z")
Too late to edit. I didn’t really want to go to the trouble that **MEBuckner** did. Thanks, **MEBuckner**! ---
**Author:** ![Sirreal72](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Sirreal72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sirreal72)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/56 "2011-10-18T02:32:04Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Agreed. The south seceded to preserve the money-making economic engine of the south, namely plantation slave labor. The value of the slaves was in the billions of dollars, in 1865 dollars. Any weakening of slavery would mean economic disaster for every slaveholder. … and? What is the logical extention of this argument? Economic collapse of the Southern states. The average person did not need to own slaves in order to fear economic disaster. At the same time, the very wealthy would lose something more precious to them… political power in the federal government. > [@](#): > > Again, agreed. There was a great deal of effort expended on showing how slavery was beneficial for the slave, how it was ordained by God, so forth. Nice; Way to spin what I said. Obviously I was referring to the “winners” of the War justifying it’s cost. The arguments for slavery were presented far in advance of the war. (Wrongly imo, but for some reason people seem intent on ignoring the fact that I’m not arguing in “defense” of the South. I’m simply stating what I see as the cause.) History is written by the winners. I don’t know who said/wrote that, but only a fool ignores it the truth of it. Did Columbus “discover” America? No. Was it taught for decades in American schools that he did? Yes. If you understand WHY, then you’ll understand what I’m saying. If you insist that he did, then there’s nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/57 "2011-10-18T03:11:32Z")
Look, I agree that the North didn’t fight the war in order to abolish slavery, that’s clear. But the South indisputably did secede to preserve slavery. Slavery was what made the knot of other problems–tarriffs and whatnot–impossible to resolve. And they needed to preserve slavery because the abolition of slavery meant economic collapse, as you say. Either that, or a buyback of slaves at their market value, which, given the limited government revenues of the time, would have been absolutely impossible. So–the nation could not continue half slave and half free. The South decided the solution to the problem was secession. That was intolerable to the North. And so we had the civil war. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2011, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/58 "2011-10-19T11:29:08Z")
While I haven’t read all of the above word for word, it seems like the focus is on the state of things in 1861. That’s a good starting point but just as important is the fact that … 1. the south got the economic shit kicked out of them during the war, and 2. they had to rebuild with a large population of relatively poor, uneducated ex-slaves ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2011, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/59 "2011-10-19T13:38:37Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Look, I agree that the North didn’t fight the war in order to abolish slavery, that’s clear. Well, yes and no. They might not have started the war to end slavery, but I’d argue that’s more or less why they continued to fight it. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649/60 "2011-10-20T10:45:54Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Well, yes and no. They might not have started the war to end slavery, but I’d argue that’s more or less why they continued to fight it. Some… perhaps most (perhaps), clearly not all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/11-of-the-12-lowest-median-household-income-states-were-part-of-the-confederacy/599649.md?page=2)