Your opinion of the CSA.

"Because of the bad blood involved, no action was taken on his [Secty of War, J Davis] decision; votes taken went against funding the Southern route, because of the split in Congress between Northern and Southern interests. Then, in 1861, the Southern congressmen left Congress as a precursor to Southern secession, whereupon action and funding progressed immediately to begin work on the Northern route. The North's final decision on a route, the central route through Nebraska, hinged greatly on analyses of how use of the Railroad would impact the impending Civil War, which had just broken out"

As you can see funding for both Southern and Central routes were held up, but neither concept was rejected.

In 1854, Secretary of War Jefferson Davis was enthusiastic about plans to put a route of the Transcontinental Railroad through the South - and well he might as he was majorly invested in it. (That's why Sherman was gung-ho to remove the Sioux from the plains - he was heavily invested in the northern route.) There was too much sectional strife in Congress by then (as previously noted by another poster) and when the war broke out and the southern representatives went home, the funding went kaput. Then the remaining Congress, knowing the vital use of railroads and having no opposition now, forked over lots of federal funds and swaths of land for the fast building of railroads for the war effort- the Pacific Railroad Act. Davis couldn't do that because he didn't have the money in the first place and states' rights became a problem, not to mention his congress was still in a state of fluster and there wasn't a work force for the purpose. Grenville Dodge had made a scouting of another route through Nebraska and that was the one decided on by the US. So, in 1862, ground was broken in Sacramento and in Missouri - and away they went! It was a long time later before the South began to get some railroads. (Incidentally, almost all that land given to the railroads came from...guess who! )

Those generous groups of indigenous groups nomadic hunter/gathers?

The scholarship here is very impressive. 35 pages so far of point counter point arguing about everything. Small facts and who said what about this and quite frankly I think it all goes to prove a point I made awhile back on one of these threads. The facts of the thing had very little to do with the growing animosity between the sections. The war wasn't fought because of the facts but on feelings, perceptions if you will, of what those others were getting away with or planning next. Once the yankees or the fire eaters became those others the war was inevitable.

Lol! One of my favorite John Wayne quotes about Indians:

"I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them, if that's what you're asking. Our so-called stealing of this country from them was just a matter of survival. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves."

My next favorite was when an interviewer entered Wayne's home and was surprised the only indication of Western culture was a line of kachinas on a shelf going around his living room. Behind him a big voice murmured, "I DID NOT kill and stuff those Indians!" Gotta love the Duke! His grandfather was a Union CW veteran - I always figure on the times somebody was born into before judging their opinions. (He's a big favorite in Indian country, by the way.)

There were a lot of difficulties in getting progressive agendas going in the South, largely because of the strife over slavery and its attendant issues. Davis was, strange to say, similar in his progressive views to Lincoln - he wanted railroads, canals, shipping and all manner of modernized infrastructure in the South for trade with the North. Even at the point of secession, he still felt the two sections could co-exist 'with fraternity' and wanted the South to modernize. But, things turned a different direction.

While it's true that there were a number of different proposals for the transcontinental railroad I'm not aware of any congressional votes on the subject until after the Southern rebellion had begun.

I think I posted this before, from DeBow's Review, so it has a southern bias. It's from the early 1850s, so doesn't include things after that of course, but it gives an overview. To break it down more particularly would require going through the individual appropriations or finding someone who already has:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HJ0RAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA485&output=html

You can read the whole thing. Quick excerpt:

What was rejected in the way of internal improvements by the Congress is simple. very little asked as Federal money did not pay 100% and southern states were unwilling to cough up the 20 or 30% share. Besides, the south was/is blessed with a riverine system upon which its transportation system was based. No need for a railroad when a planter could use low cost water transport from a dock right on his property right down to New Orleans, Mobile, etc to sell to or contract with NYC brokers for movement to NYC, Boston, Phila or Europe.