|
MrRodgers -> RE: Civil War (7/21/2015 9:17:36 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
A more realistic if is that if Eli Whitney had made a harvester as well as the cotton gin there would have been no civil war.
No way. The people of the southern states had slavery ingrained in their culture. They believed in a biblically supported view of white superiority. They were determined to keep the status quo. The introduction of a harvesting machine would not have changed that one bit.
The southern states were NOT going to be told to abolish slavery. PERIOD.
Slavery ingrained in their culture doesn't ring true anymore than it does for say Britain or the Northern part of the United States.
The South still looked to England for its lead, fashion and trends. England hadn't long abolished slavery and the Northern part of the United States hardly had a long history of an anti-slavery attitude.
To suggest that the South was an anachronism when it comes to slavery is demonstrably not true.
not only that but congress would have us believe its all over states rights.
[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/lincoln%20civil%20war/Lincolnthebeginningofnationalemerge.jpg[/image]
It was over an over reaching federal government which was man made situation. Despite slavery being abolished they still had that little problem of honoring contracts and the north defaulted. Of the many ways to handle the matter the one chosen was war, a power grab under the english right of conquest. (to pretend to pay the bills)
I happen to know from further research that the bonds came due and despite being able to pay did not. (eternal debt, for US eternal debt slaves)
There is however a tiny snag in the theory they present, that is that if the union was not broken (according to the supreme court) the the north had no right to ban the south legislators from congress, none of whom would vote for the 14th.
The main point here is that as others have also said, slavery is a nice after thought and great sales pitch to the real reasons for the war.
There were two war fronts. One was military in the field, the other against the banks.
The Eastern banks had agreed to a $150 million government loan package just after the Civil War commenced in 1861. They would resell U.S. bonds in England with the Barings and Rothschilds, putting the United States at the mercy of the British aristocracy.
In December 1861, President Lincoln's own financial plan was presented by Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase (a free-trade liberal sweating and agonizing in the President's harness), and by Lincoln himself.
On Dec. 28, 1861, the New York banks suspended payment of gold owed to their depositors, and stopped transferring to the government the gold which they had pledged for the purchase of government bonds. The banks of other cities immediately followed suit. (can you imagine this happening today ? stick around)
James Gallatin headed a delegation of bankers who came to Washington to meet with the administration and Congress. His program contradicted the President's. First, the Treasury must deposit its gold in private banks, and let those banks pay the government's suppliers with checks, keeping the gold on deposit for the investment use of the bankers. Second, the government should sell high-interest bonds to these same banks, for them to resell to the European banking syndicate. Finally, a great deal of the war should be financed by a tax on basic industry.
(Notice this is not democrats or whigs but who ? Bankers, bipartisan wanted a banking regime whose inevitable speculation as bets placed on paper, was to be guaranteed by what ? The federal govt. and through what...a business tax on industry. (sound familiar)
|
|
|
|
