Replies

Am not willing to defend "New England Power Brokers", as you call them, but am very uneasy with your over-eagerness to engage in class warfare against alleged groups who are neither specifically named nor known nor accused of anything in particular.

I thought the concept of "Robber Baron" was pretty well known to American History Buffs. I did not realize it required further articulation for people to grasp what group to which I am referring. "Rockefeller", "Vanderbilt", "Morgan", are considered prime examples, but my usage of the term should definitely not be limited to just them.

As for "Class Warfare", I have no objections to people getting wealthy by their wits, luck, and hard work, but getting rich through the creation of monopolies, unethical practices and government cronyism, is a different matter all together. If there is a "class" that I find repugnant, it is the criminal class.

Further, your implication that there was no corruption before 1861, and therefore it was Civil War which taught politicians & businesses how to be corrupt, is just laughable.

I didn't say there was no corruption. I said there appears to have been a massive increase in corruption that seems to have began with the Civil War. I conjecture that it is the crony capitalism that initiated the war which redefined the normal way of doing business subsequent to the war.

Indeed, your narrow focus on economic reasons and classes of people suggests an underlying Marxist ideology, and tells us that you are likely on conservative Free Republic as a poser, a false flagger whose real ideology is quite alien here.

My narrow focus on economic reasons (and classes of people) for the war is the consequence of seeing this map which was created by a group called "Dead Confederates.Com" Which I take to mean an anti-confederate group.

This map opened my eyes to what was really going on in the USA prior to the Civil War. From other discussions, I had been made aware that *MOST* of the export value was produced by Southern Products, and the basics of trade informs us that the trade equations must roughly balance, so I had to ask myself, "Why is all that money ending up in New York if the bulk of it is produced from Products exported by the South?"

This did not make any sense to me until I learned of how the laws were jiggered to favor the New England States and New England ships and shipping.

I then realized a bunch of that trade would be effectively shut off and redistributed to Southern ports if the South became a separate nation.

I already knew that Lincoln had gotten quite a lot of financial support for his campaign from Wealthy New Yorkers, and I thought to myself "How would they feel about losing all that trade?" Well, they would be livid! They would be foaming at the mouth angry. So what would they do about it? Why they would demand something be done! It would quickly occur to them that they were in an economic trap for which the only solution was to STOP SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE!

The only way their financial problems could be remedied was to stop the South from becoming independent, and so I believe they brought every possible pressure to bear on Lincoln in an effort to convince Him to stop the South from forming it's own nation.

It also answered a question that has been puzzling me since high school. "What was the purpose of that blockade"?

For years I thought Lincoln threw up that blockade just to give the Navy something to do. I didn't see how it could have any military significance because those who were going to fight on the side of the South were already there, and they appeared to have all the guns and weapons they needed.

Sure it could affect *TRADE*, but how much effect could it have militarily? Not much that I could see.

But when the Blockade is examined in the light of PREVENTING EUROPEAN PROFITS through trading with the South, it suddenly becomes crystal clear that the blockade was an absolutely critical aspect of the Union War effort.

If European shipping was allowed to see much larger profits than they would ordinarily have received from New York, It would have changed everything. The European governments would have a much larger stake in seeing Southern Independence occur, so that future profits could be locked in.

The Blockade wasn't created for any significant military purpose, it was created entirely for economic reasons. It was created entirely to keep European economic trade from being established with the South, to the detriment of New England Trade.

When you want to know why anything happens, "Follow the Money."

DiogenesLamp: "As for "Class Warfare", I have no objections to people getting wealthy by their wits, luck, and hard work, but getting rich through the creation of monopolies, unethical practices and government cronyism, is a different matter all together."

Sure I "get" that you've been thoroughly victimized by modern education into buying Marxist propaganda, hook line & sinker.

Here's what you need to understand.
Outside of Ten Commandments and other such biblical injunctions, all laws are man-made, all are imperfect in both conception and results.
And all generally followed from bad results after people did what they thought was a good thing, certainly good for them.

So the first questions we need to ask are, did these alleged "robber barons" break existing laws of their time, or were laws written after the fact to stop what voters saw as unhappy results?
Second, if "robber barons" did allegedly break existing laws, were they prosecuted and what were the results?
Third, how much of "robber barons" wealth came from legitimate business practices, inventions and negotiations versus their criminal behavior?

My guess is that an objective look would reveal less "robber" and more hard work under the laws of the time.
Indeed, I'd apply the same moral standards as to antebellum slave-holders: most obeyed the laws most of the time, and so should not be condemned if the laws themselves were unjust or just inadequate.
In Northern states slavery was abolished peacefully and gradually, no need for violence or confiscations of property.
Likewise with "robber barons" -- if laws needed to be changed, or better enforced, I would not automatically condemn people who did their best under existing standards.

DiogenesLamp: "I said there appears to have been a massive increase in corruption that seems to have began with the Civil War.
I conjecture that it is the crony capitalism that initiated the war which redefined the normal way of doing business subsequent to the war."

I have no problems with conjecture or speculations, so long as they are identified as such.
Everyone has a right to their opinions...

But I've seen nothing in the way of facts or statistics to justify your conjecture here.

DiogenesLamp: "This did not make any sense to me until I learned of how the laws were jiggered to favor the New England States and New England ships and shipping.
I then realized a bunch of that trade would be effectively shut off and redistributed to Southern ports if the South became a separate nation."

But here's the key fact you need to understand: Federal laws were not jiggered against the South, period.
And the reason is simple: the South ran Washington DC.
No laws got passed or "jiggered" without Southern approval.
Further the mechanism by which minority Southerners ruled in Washington DC was their political alliance with Northern Big-City Democrat bosses, i.e., Tammany Hall.
So the Slave-Power and Tammany Hall wrote laws to suit themselves, and you claim post-war corruption was greater?
I don't think so.

And you claim the South didn't like those laws?
No again.

DiogenesLamp: "The only way their financial problems could be remedied was to stop the South from becoming independent, and so I believe they brought every possible pressure to bear on Lincoln in an effort to convince Him to stop the South from forming it's own nation. "

More conjecture & speculation, right?
In fact, Lincoln made no efforts before Fort Sumter to stop anything, and that's just what he told secessionists in his first inaugural.
Neither did Lincoln's predecessor, Buchanan, but Buchanan did attempt to resupply Fort Sumter in January, which Lincoln again attempted in April.

In January Buchanan's resupply ship after receiving secessionist artillery fire simply withdrew, no further actions.
But in April Confederates were better prepared for a much stronger military operation, and so started Civil War.

DiogenesLamp: "The Blockade wasn't created for any significant military purpose, it was created entirely for economic reasons.
It was created entirely to keep European economic trade from being established with the South, to the detriment of New England Trade."

More conjecture & speculation.
In fact, General Scott's "Anaconda Plan" was created years before the war -- indeed former Secretary of War Jefferson Davis may well have been aware of it.
It's purposes were both military and economic, but for the first year and more it was largely ineffective, since up to 90% of the ships which tried to run it got through.
Therefore the South's economy was not significantly affected by the blockade.
It was however very seriously changed by Confederates' own embargo on cotton exports, resulting in eventual burning of 2.5 million bales -- half an annual crop.
The Confederate economy also dramatically changed when converted from cotton growing to food production for the Army.

Finally, here's a key point for you to grasp: between April 1861 and April 1865 the Confederacy on any day could have stopped the war on much better terms than the "unconditional surrender" they received at Appomattox Court House.
Any and all the economic issues you claim were so important to them could have been reasonably negotiated away, but they never did.
And the reason is?
Because all such issues are not what really mattered to Confederate ruling elites.