The South faced much more hardship economically during the war (because their agricultural economy based on slave labor made mobilization of resources more difficult while the North's economic and industrial capacity soared during the war as it continued its rapid industrialization). In the South, the biggest problems were lack of labor, poverty and poor relief, especially in times of acute food shortages. Also, their money had no base and was ultimately worthless, making buying and selling goods extremely difficult. They couldn't get aid from foreign nations due to their lack of capital and resources to spare (and when cotton and other cash crop fields were destroyed and lost money, it was a nail in the coffin). The North, on the other hand, had a solid economy with money well-backed by gold and silver. Their industrialization also meant that the main problem faced, which they could recover from and work through, was labor shortages (from all men going to fight).
It seems to me as if somewhere along the road, these Enlightenment ideas were in a way corrupted.<span> </span>The killing of the King is understandable because he is a symbol of the old way of government. Even killing the highest, most elite of the government was understandable. But killing every last government associate and even priests seems like a very noticeable turn from the traditional Enlightenment philosophies of Jean-Jacques and Voltaire.
