What President Rutherford B. Hayes said in 1888 [Vanity]

wikiquote.org ^ | March 11, 1888 | President Rutherford Birchard Hayes

[Jyotishi]

Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 19th President of the United States wrote:

The real difficulty is with the vast wealth and power in the hands of the few and the unscrupulous who represent or control capital. Hundreds of laws of Congress and the state legislatures are in the interest of these men and against the interests of workingmen. These need to be exposed and repealed. All laws on corporations, on taxation, on trusts, wills, descent, and the like, need examination and extensive change. This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations. -- How is this? - Diary (11 March 1888) - Rutherford Birchard Hayes (October 4, 1822 - January 17, 1893), 19th President of the United States (1877-1881).

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rutherford_B._Hayes

[HiTech RedNeck]

So what’s new under the sun. The shoe moves from foot to foot, but it’s the same shoe.

[oldbrowser]

"A corporation is company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

The USA is a corporation.

[hold_muh_bier]

Heh, have you read this?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/how-the-robber-barons-hijacked-the-victorian-internet/

It's a fascinating article about how the Telegraph system was commandeered and manipulated to influence the 1876 election. Worth your time, I promise.

[Paladin2]

Thanks f8r the post.

[Jyotishi]

Very educational, thanks!

[abb]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/how-the-robber-barons-hijacked-the-victorian-internet/

[onona]

Let’s just hope the lace tie-ers loosen things up this time around.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Interesting!

[DiogenesLamp]

This ascent of corporate power was a consequence of the Civil War. Lincoln's "Mercantilist" government ushered in an era of the heaviest collusion between power barons and government, as well as the subsequent era of the worst corruption in government the nation had ever seen.

[DiogenesLamp]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/how-the-robber-barons-hijacked-the-victorian-internet/

It's a fascinating article about how the Telegraph system was commandeered and manipulated to influence the 1876 election. Worth your time, I promise.

That dovetails precisely with other pieces of evidence I have discovered that indicates the Robber Barons basically took over the US Government with the election of Lincoln, and immediately used it to launch a war against the South to prevent their economic independence from their corporate masters in New York.

Something I have only learned since February of this year is that virtually all the Trade with Europe was produced by the South, but completely controlled by New York. When the South declared independence, this caused a massive economic crises in New York because they were making about 40 cents on every dollar in Southern export trade.

The loss of the South was a huge economic catastrophe for them, and rather than face economic ruin, they convinced Lincoln to launch a war to prevent the South from becoming independent.

[hold_muh_bier]

You’ve piqued my interest! Say more, please?

[jimmyray]

Interesting. Have a reference that summarizes that point of view, would enjoy reading more about it

[VisualizeSmallerGovernment]

Rutherford B Hayes was selected, not elected.

NOT MY PRESIDENT! NOT MY PRESIDENT!

Yes, I can carry a grudge.

[DiogenesLamp]

You’ve piqued my interest! Say more, please?

Most of what needs to be said can be gleaned from this map...

...If you know one pertinent fact. 3/4ths of all export value came from the Southern States.

The returning import value (represented through the proxy of those tariff revenues illustrated on the map) came mostly through New York.

New York had control of the Southern export trade and the vast majority of the incoming European trade. The New York Shipping, Insurance, Banking, and Warehousing Barons had many fingers in the Southern economic pie, and shaved off about 40% of every Dollar produced in the South.

Control of the Southern exports was a very major major piece of the economies of New York and New England. When the South seceded it meant Major Major players in the National power brokers association were going to lose their shirts. The South was going to trade direct with Europe, cutting them out of the picture, and the additional revenue which the South would receive from direct trade would capitalize industry that would later directly compete with industries already built and owned by these Robber Barons.

The Civil War was about huge sums of money. It was about New York being in control of the Economics of the nation rather than Charleston stealing their traffic and industry from them. (Charleston would have become the primary port for the Southern States. It would have been the "New York" of the South.)

New York was Rome. Charleston was Carthage. Rome Conquered Carthage.

[Trumpet 1]

Pres. Hayes was part of a compromise that removed the Union troops from the South and allowed the South to invent new forms of slavery. The South rapidly became prosperous with the reworked forms of slave labor. Crackers was a word used to describe the newly wealthy who were cracking their whips at each other as a form of greeting.

[DiogenesLamp]

Interesting. Have a reference that summarizes that point of view, would enjoy reading more about it

See my message #15. Stumbling onto this map is what got me thinking along these lines. I saw this map years ago and I didn't think much about it at the time.

The guy who created the map said he created it to demonstrate that the Civil War could not have been fought over "tariffs" because the South collected very little tariffs and must therefore have had very little in the way of imports or money to pay for them. Basically he was saying the South was poor and economically irrelevant to the prosperous Union. At the time I simply accepted this analysis.

And then I read articles from people claiming the South produced the vast majority of all the Export value for the United States just prior to the war. Well most anyone that knows anything about economics realizes that import and export trade must roughly balance from year to year, else there is a trade deficit.

So I couldn't understand how these two seemingly contradictory things could be possible. If the South is producing the vast majority (75%) of all export trade value, how then is all the money ending up in New York?

It took me a long time to figure this out, but it turns out to be true. New York had pretty much jiggered the laws and circumstances to create a virtual monopoly on all import and export trade for the entire nation, and most of the money earned by exports was funneled back to New York where they skimmed off a massive cut.

An independent South would cut the financial throats of those Robber Barons in New York who were controlling the trade, and so they convinced their "Mercantilist" President to launch a war to prevent the South from taking over the European trade, and thereby cutting New York out as a middle man.

The War was over money. Lots and lots of money. Of course nobody would admit such a thing, so they pretended it was "to preserve the Union" (nobody was objecting to breaking away from the British Union) and to "abolish Slavery" even though slavery existed longer in the Union slave states than it did in the "Rebel" slave states.

The facts illustrate that the only explanation that makes any sense is Money.

[MadIsh32]

It was all over money

Free labor for southern plantation owners. Without the free labor, the economy of the south would have been trash.

[hold_muh_bier]

Excellent and informative synopsis —thank you!

[rusty schucklefurd]

Re: “The War was over money. Lots and lots of money. Of course nobody would admit such a thing, so they pretended it was “to preserve the Union” (nobody was objecting to breaking away from the British Union) and to “abolish Slavery” even though slavery existed longer in the Union slave states than it did in the “Rebel” slave states.”

This simply isn’t true. Secession was hotly argued back and forth in Congess for decades prior to the war. Slavery was the aggravating issue that was simmering over several decades as well. “Popular sovereignty” and the induction of new and future territories as states into the Union as “slave” or “free” states was a huge issue - in fact, I believe this was the final breaking point that pushed the South into secession when Lincoln was elected. He opposed giving new/future states the choice of being slave or free. The South knew this would eventually drain their political power in congress, so in their view, they had to secede.

Yes money was an issue, but not the defining issue. The Missouri Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Act, “Bleeding Kansas”, John Brown, the Abolition movement, Fort Sumpter, and a hundred other flash points pushed both sides (even families) to the point complete division and of open violence. The South had counted on European support because of their need of cotton, but that support never really materialized - especially after Lincoln’s issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.

Yes, the slave states that stayed in the Uniion had slavery longer than the
Confederate states, but only because the Confederacy lost.