Prelude To A New Civil War?

We should first note that DiogenesLamp has unburdened himself of a very lengthy post, the kind of length he usually refuses to respond to if directed at him.
So we'll learn now if DiogenesLamp can take it as well as he dishes it out...

DiogenesLamp: "When I watch the "news", which I seldom do anymore, all I see are talking heads from the New York labor pool.
That city voted 89% to elect Obama.
That's all you need to know about how f***ed up is their thinking in that city"

New Yorkers also elected Rudi Giuliani as mayor (1994-2001) and Michael Bloomberg (2002 - 2013) at a time when billionaire Bloomberg claimed to be Republican.
So until relatively recent years New Yorkers were not totally politically insane.

DiogenesLamp: "And from where did this money come, and who handled the loaning of it?"

There are no maps or graphs I've ever seen showing which counties nationwide produce more federal revenues and which consume more.
But my guess is such a map would show that most relatively rural counties produce and consume very little of Federal cash-flow, while the huge cities like NY, Chicago & LA etc., do both produce and consume the vast majority of Federal revenues.

Indeed, such a graph may show that the statistically poorest states like Mississippi consume the greatest per capita Federal spending.
Just my guess...

As for how all of it is financed, again my guess, the Federal reserve with it's 12 banks nationwide is rather closely involved:

DiogenesLamp: "Who made money off of "Poverty" other than obviously the eventual recipients of welfare?
Did other people make money off of the 21 trillion we spent?
Who were these people, and where would you suppose they were, geographically speaking? "

Of course some people made money, because all governments spend huge funds through private contractors, and have written great reams of regulations to control who & how such money is spent.
So sure, you might assume that all governments are always corrupt, but that can only be true if your definition of "corrupt" is: "any money that's not spent to support my own political agenda."

So what, exactly is your point?
Do you wish to take government contracts away from "A" and award them to "B", based on what?
Is that your bottom line -- you think that the "wrong people" are being awarded government contracts?
So who, exactly are these "wrong people" and what makes them so "wrong"?

DiogenesLamp: "Well that was certainly a bad idea for those people who built their economies on cotton and slaves, because they should have predicted that when they took their slavery produced economic trade away from them, the people who had the foresight to build canals and railroads and factories were going to convince the government to go down into their lands, kill their people, destroy their capital accumulation, and wreck their entire economic system."

Total nonsense, that's not what happened, and you have zero evidence to "prove" it did.
What really happened was those New York money-men were Democrat political allies, economic partners and social bosom-buddies with Southern planters.
So when those planters declared secession and repudiated their debts to New Yorkers, it did P.O. the planters' strongest Northern allies.
And so most Northern Democrats supported "Lincoln's war".

But Lincoln didn't need and didn't ask for Northern Democrat support, certainly not in 1861.
And as the war went on, Republican majorities in Congress continued to increase.
So there was no time during the Civil War when Northern Democrat support was critical to Lincoln's actions.

DiogenesLamp: " I personally think the additional capital in the South would have spurred much industry, and there is a very good chance that the Confederacy would have ended up with the bulk of what is now the United States, if not eventually obtaining the entire thing.
I think they would have certainly ended up with at least this much of it."

That's pure fantasy, of course, but it does at least confirm Union concerns that Civil War was not just a matter of the Confederacy saying "leave us alone", but rather of Confederates' existential threat to the United States.

DiogenesLamp: "Notice that almost everything connected by waterways to the controlling port of New York is blue? (Left coast excepted.) "

Sure, but DiogenesLamp, you should notice that New York is no longer our biggest port, it's a distant third behind New Orleans and Houston and even that only happens because they statistically combine New York, New Jersey & Newark ports.
All by itself, the New York port would be a mere blip on the radar screen.

DiogenesLamp: "Especially when the laws have been gimmicked to funnel everything through your port. "

"Gimmicked", if at all, by the political alliance of Southern Democrat planters and Northern Democrat big-city immigrant bosses who ruled Washington, DC, from ~1801 until secession in 1861.

DiogenesLamp: "If you buck the money men in contact with the Washington DC government, you will certainly be impoverished, if you survive."

And DiogenesLamp has what, personal experience with this?
Is that where all your obvious animosity comes from?

DiogenesLamp: "My point isn't that they have more, it's that they only have more because they used the force of government to destroy the ability of their competitors to challenge their dominance.
Why do you think it's called the "Empire State"? "

Today New York ports' rankings are only kept high by combining them statistically with Newark & New Jersey -- alone, New York would be a minor player.
Even combined, New York ranks just third in some categories, down to seventh in others.
So the basic premise of your argument here is just false.

DiogenesLamp: "We should have equal time on all broadcasting media."

And so DiogenesLamp demonstrates, yet again, that you are more Leftist-brained than true conservative.
You wish to control the media, impose your own standards on it, and make it say what you wish it would say.
That's Leftist, not conservative.

The conservative solution is this: if you don't like it, don't listen, don't watch, don't click, don't read and don't respond to their phony-baloney "push polls".
Instead, watch/read/listen/respond to news presented the way you like to see it presented -- presumably "fair & balanced".
There are, after all, lots of media out there working hard to get your attention, Mr. & Ms. Conservative, and if you will reward them by listening and supporting their advertisers, there will over time be even more.
That's conservative, we don't need and don't want a government agency to control a truly free press.

DiogenesLamp: "The "news" systems never points out that communism is responsible for the destruction of Venezuela, or that Islam is the prime factor in European murders.
They minimize it, and shadow it if they can."

Not the media I watch and certainly not Free Republic.

DiogenesLamp: "The woman was in therapy for some reason or other, and this sounds like a pretty good and believable reason.
Also she purged all her social media, so this tells me she's trying to hide what she is and was."

My guess is there are plenty of facts that were hidden from public view in recent weeks and that may, or may not, come out in future months/years.
But if you will just take some time to mull it over, I'd guess the overall Republican response was just about pitch-perfect, meaning they gave the accuser serious, polite attention, but did not accept her story absent serious corroboration.
In the end, the episode may, repeat may, have united Republicans for November 6 like never before.

We'll soon see.

DiogenesLamp: "Apart from that, since the woman is trucking in false allegations, why should I care when false allegations are made against her?
The lying kook bitch deserves to get her own medicine back, don't you think?
I believe in being civil to those who are civil, and I believe in being a cut-throat bastard to those who are not."

Some of my grown daughters think the accuser was sincere, legit and should be believed.
They would not accept your attitude towards her, absent some compelling data to the contrary.

So far, such data is not available even from conservative news media.
So stay tuned....

They didn’t want to go to Madison in the first place, and it is now very insulting to their dignity to be buried there now among such louts now. Rather than insult them, dig them up and take them home.
==================

Well said. The time for the last prisoner exchange has come.

We in the South mark and care for Union graves. It would never occur to us to not respect war dead.
-=============

Maybe it's time to rethink that. Playing nice with these people doesn't seem to work very well. I say we find every Union (Wisconsin Units) grave in the South and remove the marker.

They can dish it out, let's see if they can take it.

“It would never occur to us to not respect war dead.”

—

We honor war dead in the North too.

.

If you (generic) don’t learn from the past, you might experience the same calamity in the future.

5.56mm

I know of no incident in which the Confederate army invaded Kentucky while Kentucky was neutral. Kentucky was only neutral prior to April 11, 1861. No Confederate armies invaded anyone prior to that time.

You need to do more research. Grant (Union) stayed out of Kentucky, honoring the wishes of the state legislature, when Polk (Confederate) rushed in. So the legislature invited the federals in to repel the invaders.

I have said that several times myself. Instead of me bitching about the power brokers of New York, I would instead be bitching about the power brokers of Charleston, or Atlanta, or wherever. Yes, there would be another major money clique in power, and I would probably be bitching about it.

You wouldn't exist as "you" in some alternate universe, so what "you" would do about it is anybody's guess. That you harp so incessantly on the supposed injustice of New York's successes in our own universe and have so little to say about other problems and injustices speaks volumes.

Well that was certainly a bad idea for those people who built their economies on cotton and slaves, because they should have predicted that when they took their slavery produced economic trade away from them, the people who had the foresight to build canals and railroads and factories were going to convince the government to go down into their lands, kill their people, destroy their capital accumulation, and wreck their entire economic system.

You say stuff like that, and very emotionally, but you have never proved that it was New York capitalists or merchants who ordered the war or the army's move south. So far, the only verdict one can give is "not guilty."

I personally think the additional capital in the South would have spurred much industry, and there is a very good chance that the Confederacy would have ended up with the bulk of what is now the United States, if not eventually obtaining the entire thing. I think they would have certainly ended up with at least this much of it.

Map of 2004 election follows.

Such an arbitrary choice. Why would all of history follow the 2004 election results, when what happened in elections before and after 2004 differed from the results of that year? Why not post the map of 1952 or 1956 or 1928 or 1904 or 1880?

There was no great cultural or economic affinity between the South, the Midwest, the Plains, and the Rocky Mountain states until quite recently in our history (if then), and if by some chance, Confederatia became the economic powerhouse of the continent, that would be all the more reason for Westerners and others to envy and dislike the Dixiecratians. If the South became the big bad capitalist bogey, Western populists would have hated them as much as they hated New York (at various times in our history).

Especially when the laws have been gimmicked to funnel everything through your port.

That was not true then and is not true now.

My point isn't that they have more, it's that they only have more because they used the force of government to destroy the ability of their competitors to challenge their dominance.

Such b*llsh*t. New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio got a head start over states like Arizona and New Mexico. They developed first. Now Arizona and New Mexico have developed. They've used the advantage of late-comers to catch up to those who used the advantage of being first.

Much the same is true of South Carolina or Tennessee with respect to the older industrialized states. The Civil War complicated things and retarded their development, but not by as much as you keep saying. Apart from the destruction of the war, there were serious problems that needed to be worked out - climate and weather, diseases, race - before the region could develop as much as other parts of the country.

And now, the Southern states have the advantage of being "greenfields" of new development, rather than deindustrialized "brownfields," yet you still clownishly attack the older industrialized "rustbelt" states. You kick them when they are down because of what you take to be past sins, as if these real or imagined sins were worse than anybody else's. Shame on you.

Why do you think it's called the "Empire State"?

Why is Georgia the "Empire State of the South?" Why did Jefferson call America, the "Empire of Liberty?" Why did so great an anti-imperialist as George Washington call the country an "infant empire?" These are all things our country will have to work out. While we're doing that, maybe you can come up the the proof that New York business interests wanted or started or caused the Civil War.

They will tend to find ideas "agreeable" when they are constantly repeated in their ears. I think it is axiomatic that those people who constantly repeat certain ideas on mass broadcasting airwaves will tend to move the suggestible part of the public in the direction of accepting those ideas. Eventually a preference cascade is reached, and these ideas are the "new normal."

So people have no free will? You are wrong. Ideas and information that go against the prevailing media climate have a way of making their way over, under, around or even through the mainstream media if they're true enough and potent enough.

How do you know it is made up? I've seen it from several sources.

Not independent sources. Not people who've done serious research. Not people who use their own names and give the names of their sources. All you have is some twitterer who sent the message that she told her best friend that she had 64 men between junior year and college.

How would he know what she told her best friend? How could he know? Who was the friend? Who is the person making the tweet? Why did he delete his account? Or why was it deleted? If it was true, why haven't we learned more about it? Why didn't he send it to someone who would investigate it? Why did he tweet it to Brian Stelter, who wouldn't investigate the matter and would probably use it to attack Kavanaugh?

Why did the other idiot change the number to 54? Why did he say it was in the yearbook when it wasn't? How could she say that she had 64 or 54 lovers between high school and college and put it in the yearbook when she was still in high school, some time before graduation? And though the yearbooks were "scrubbed," enough of the relevant yearbook was available on line to see that the information wasn't there.

Apart from that, since the woman is trucking in false allegations, why should I care when false allegations are made against her? The lying kook bitch deserves to get her own medicine back, don't you think?

So you're no better than her? So truth doesn't matter? That explains a lot about your posts over the past few years.

Himyar: "It would never occur to us to not respect war dead."

Mears: "We honor war dead in the North too."

At Gettysburg National Military Park, about an hour & a half from my home, are hundreds of battle monuments.
By my count at least 40 are to Confederates.

We should first note that DiogenesLamp has unburdened himself of a very lengthy post, the kind of length he usually refuses to respond to if directed at him.

That post was directed to "x", and of course you feel the need to respond to it. "x" has not worn out his rhetoric on me, so i'm much more willing to read his long commentary. It is usually far less deliberately partisan and more intellectually objective than what you routinely write. It is also generally more to the point being discussed, rather than another round of "Rah Rah" cheer leading for your side.

So we'll learn now if DiogenesLamp can take it as well as he dishes it out...

I don't have any problem with "x's" long posts. It's yours that bore me to tears. Also I consider him persuadable, while you have seldom given me any reason to believe that you can look at something objectively.

You need to do more research. Grant (Union) stayed out of Kentucky, honoring the wishes of the state legislature, when Polk (Confederate) rushed in. So the legislature invited the federals in to repel the invaders.

I have virtually no knowledge of the battles or troop movements. I've never been much interested in those, because they do not speak to the philosophical aspect of whether or not states have a right to the Independence asserted in the Declaration.

When I was in high school and we had to read the "Red Badge of Courage" it gave me nightmares about being trapped in the civil war and subjected to being forced into fighting by whichever side caught me. (I knew I was from the future, and believed myself to be some sort of time traveler or something.) The dream was graphic, and I felt like a fugitive trying to avoid the soldiers of either army, and the carnage was terrible. The sense of "I don't belong here" and the sense of being a fugitive was very strong and unpleasant.

It left me with the impression that the war was a terrible tragedy, and that it shouldn't have been fought.

That's why I wasn't laughing (he was.) when my history major friend told me that Lincoln had deliberately started the war. I thought, "Why would anyone do such a thing? "

It was years later before it made any sense to me as to why someone would have deliberately started that war.

Money is a very powerful motivation for war, especially on the side that is losing it.

You wouldn't exist as "you" in some alternate universe, so what "you" would do about it is anybody's guess.

Axiomatic, but we are talking hypothetically anyways.

That you harp so incessantly on the supposed injustice of New York's successes in our own universe and have so little to say about other problems and injustices speaks volumes.

Back when I was in High School, my best friend only wanted to talk about Racism. To him, that was the single most important subject in the world. From my perspective, the most important subject in the world was whether or not Russian ICBMs were going to vaporize us. I understood his focus on racism, because he saw racism everywhere, even where it didn't really exist. But I still think my preferred important subject was objectively of greater concern to all of us at the time.

Today I feel the most important subject is the propaganda system maintaining Democrats in power. I fully believe without the broadcasting media manipulating elections by biased reporting, the nation would be much further to the right than it is. We are abnormally too far to the left because of the biased manner in which all television programs are created and broadcast to the viewers.

Virtually everything else that is wrong with the nation stems from their control of the airwaves in my opinion, and so that is the lynchpin of the whole array of problems facing this nation.

But I am interested in hearing just what problems and injustices that you think I should be focusing on? What do you think is more important than breaking the ability of liberals to keep the balance of power so greatly skewed to the left?

You say stuff like that, and very emotionally, but you have never proved that it was New York capitalists or merchants who ordered the war or the army's move south.

I think the evidence speaks for itself. The word "proved" would seemingly be a matter of subjectivity. The case is sufficiently proven to myself for me to believe it, but i'm not sure what kind of evidence would be necessary for you to be convinced that the economic interests involved were sufficient to induce a war by those who had the President's ear.

I've seen other freepers assert that there was a meeting between Northern power brokers and Lincoln in which they demanded he go to war to stop the south from wrecking their economic interests, but I do not have the source for that. Have you seen that claim in these threads? I've seen it several times.

I've many times cited Northern newspapers alleging that their economies would be devastated if the South was allowed to take European trade from them as the consequence of such a low tariff as to make their ports attractive. Obviously you don't find any of that to be sufficient evidence.

Map of 2004 election follows.

Such an arbitrary choice. Why would all of history follow the 2004 election results, when what happened in elections before and after 2004 differed from the results of that year? Why not post the map of 1952 or 1956 or 1928 or 1904 or 1880?

It is a convenient map to illustrate what I think would have happened had the South kept it's independence. It best represents what I perceive as an eventually alignment of states if the Confederacy had lasted. It is in fact a snap shot of a transitory configuration. I suspect the confederacy might have eventually acquired a lot more states besides those shown in the 2004 map.

There was no great cultural or economic affinity between the South, the Midwest, the Plains, and the Rocky Mountain states until quite recently in our history (if then), and if by some chance, Confederatia became the economic powerhouse of the continent, that would be all the more reason for Westerners and others to envy and dislike the Dixiecratians. If the South became the big bad capitalist bogey, Western populists would have hated them as much as they hated New York (at various times in our history).

Not necessarily. Sure, if they acquired the arrogance of New York, and tried to attack people's belief in religion, their culture, and their economic interests, then yes, people would have come to hate the Dixie-aristocrats as much as some have come to hate the New York aristocrats. But the cultures may have worked out differently, though I think wherever there is immense wealth concentrated, people tend to develop the same sort of arrogance.

That was not true then and is not true now.

I have had long discussions on this topic with others, and I have seen sufficient explanation to convince me that the laws of the USA were indeed gimicked to create a near monopoly status for New York. Virtually all US shipping was controlled from that region, so all laws benefiting American shipping, disproportionally benefited New York.

I've had it shown to me the myriad ways the Navigation act of 1817 funneled money into New York. It was quite eye opening. There were other laws as well, (the warehousing act) but the Navigation act of 1817 did the most. All laws raising the tariff benefited New York, and hurt the Southern states.

Such b*llsh*t. New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio got a head start over states like Arizona and New Mexico.

The former are all connected by Water with New York mostly controlling access, and so they form a natural coalition of mutual interests. From what I have read, the Government would collect tariffs which were primarily paid for (75-85%)by Southern exports, and they would then spend about 85% of that money in the North building railroads and such.

Much the same is true of South Carolina or Tennessee with respect to the older industrialized states. The Civil War complicated things and retarded their development, but not by as much as you keep saying.

I dunno, what was five billion dollars worth in 1860? How well would the North's development been if it had had a commensurate sum evaporated from them? Since the North had approximately four or five times the population, that would have been the equivalent loss of about 20-25 billion dollars in 1860 valuation. Seems like that would have significantly retarded economic development for them.

Wiping out massive amounts of a region's capital can have severe long term impacts. The thing about capital, is when you have enough of it, it can make money just from having it. Banks, for example.

And now, the Southern states have the advantage of being "greenfields" of new development, rather than deindustrialized "brownfields," yet you still clownishly attack the older industrialized "rustbelt" states.

Not really. I mainly attack New York. Too much of the nation's business is done according to what are in the best interests of the executive classes of New York.

While we're doing that, maybe you can come up the the proof that New York business interests wanted or started or caused the Civil War.

What would you regard as proof? Obviously the raw numbers of who was producing the import stream and where the money was going is not sufficient to convince you. Likewise the various northern newspaper articles which say the exact same thing as I have been saying, aren't sufficient to convince you. What sort of proof would you find convincing? Signed statements by the power brokers themselves incriminating themselves in the whole affair?

So people have no free will? You are wrong.

I didn't say that. I said many are suggestible, and this is absolutely true. Few people will exhibit independent thinking when confronted with what they believe to be socially approved group think. Then there is the tendency of people to believe/obey those they regard as "authority figures", and in this case Talking Head News anchors.

Ideas and information that go against the prevailing media climate have a way of making their way over, under, around or even through the mainstream media if they're true enough and potent enough.

For some, and the numbers depend on how compelling or how widely viewed the information is. It has to be somewhat puissant to overcome the constant gale force winds of the normal leftist propaganda system known as the mainstream media. Even then, it often only moves a few of the undecideds in the middle. Seldom does it move more than 10% or so to change their minds, but usually 10% movement is enough to swing public opinion to the majority.

So you're no better than her? So truth doesn't matter? That explains a lot about your posts over the past few years.

Truth matters to those who truck in truth. Truth doesn't matter to those who truck in falsehood. Her vile smears from the past set the standard for what should be a suitable response. She wants to use lies? Then no one should shed any tears that she gets back the same consideration.

I've long advocated the principle of "à bon chat, bon rat." I have recently learned that it has been scientifically established as the correct response for dealing with intransigent others.

You wait, it's just a matter of time until these pukes get around to Gettysburg, and other battlefields.

Someone should tell them that if those men could see how this country turned out, Lincoln couldn't have mustered a platoon.

Do liberal politicians really advocate socialism? Do they truly condemn due process? Are they sincerely committed to abortion? If so, can they be persuaded to see the light?
Indeed, many of them already have seen it. Every member of Congress, of either party, is well aware of Venezuela's socialist disaster. All of them favor due process, at least for themselves, if ever falsely accused. And most of them (or at least those who have any knowledge) recognize that partial-birth abortions are barbaric. They are already persuaded, maybe with the exception of a handful of truly demented members.
Then why do so many of them advocate such absurd positions?
It's all about, and only about, money and power. Period. Everything they do is centered on those two things.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/when_joe_manchin_pulls_his_mask_off_what_do_you_see.html

DiogenesLamp: " That post was directed to "x", and of course you feel the need to respond to it. "

There was no response yet from "x" and I had some spare time so decided to pitch in.

DiogenesLamp: " 'x' has not worn out his rhetoric on me, so i'm much more willing to read his long commentary.
It is usually far less deliberately partisan and more intellectually objective than what you routinely write. "

Well, first of all, the truth is not "objective", the truth simply is, whether we like it or not, whether it fits our favorite narrative or not, it's still the truth.

Second, your fake history has no more connection to known facts than does that Ford woman accusing the judge of misbehavior some 35+ years ago -- people cited for corroboration deny it happened!
Third, "x" sounds to me like someone with teaching experience, and pulls a lot of punches.
Others like jmacusa hammer their points even harder than I do.
So "x" may be hoping to educate you, I am here simply to defeat your ridiculous claims.

DiogenesLamp: "I don't have any problem with "x's" long posts.
It's yours that bore me to tears."

Because, unlike your historical fantasies, the truth never changes, regardless of how often you deny it.

DiogenesLamp: "Also I consider him persuadable, while you have seldom given me any reason to believe that you can look at something objectively

Again, first, the truth is not "objective", it simply is, whether you like it or not.
Second, for crying out loud, "x" is no more "persuadable" by your fantasies than I or anyone else here.
"x", I'd guess, simply considers you more childlike and treats you accordingly.
I consider you fully adult and therefore well deserving of having your fake history treated bluntly for what it is.
Sorry if the truth bores you.

Second, your fake history has no more connection to known facts than does that Ford woman accusing the judge of misbehavior some 35+ years ago -- people cited for corroboration deny it happened!

And he tends not to write stuff like this. You jump the shark with your overreach.

DiogenesLamp quoting: " It's all about, and only about, money and power.
Period.
Everything they do is centered on those two things."

Sure, for Democrats that's almost always been the case, including those who declared secession & war in 1861.

Republicans are supposed to be cut from a different cloth.
Our tradition is the Union of 1776, the Constitution of 1787 and the Emancipation of 1862.
We value truth & due process over the power of "the mob" screeching "J'Accuse!".

Tell me, are you familiar with the “No True Scotsman” fallacy?

I've seen other freepers assert that there was a meeting between Northern power brokers and Lincoln in which they demanded he go to war to stop the south from wrecking their economic interests, but I do not have the source for that. Have you seen that claim in these threads? I've seen it several times.

There's a lot available about who Lincoln was meeting and when. I haven't seen any evidence of such a meeting.

I've many times cited Northern newspapers alleging that their economies would be devastated if the South was allowed to take European trade from them as the consequence of such a low tariff as to make their ports attractive. Obviously you don't find any of that to be sufficient evidence.

Business papers could be expected to say things like that in any crisis. Pro-Southern papers could be expected to chime in. When the very country itself was being torn apart, business concerns were only a small part of the general panic. When large populations were taking up arms against the federal government and some states were facing civil wars of their own, when the national capital was in danger of being taken over, anybody's lost profits took a back seat to more pressing concerns.

I have had long discussions on this topic with others, and I have seen sufficient explanation to convince me that the laws of the USA were indeed gimicked to create a near monopoly status for New York. Virtually all US shipping was controlled from that region, so all laws benefiting American shipping, disproportionally benefited New York.

You mean they proportionally benefitted New York. If you make laws about coal, West Virginia will be affected more than other states. If you make laws about cotton, it won't have much affect on Vermont or North Dakota. And if you make laws about shipping, they will have the most effect, positive or negative, on states which do the most shipping.

But do you seriously think that laws disadvantaging - or removing advantages to - American shipping would benefit the South? Not likely. Britain would be the real beneficiary. Invite them in and good luck elbowing them aside with your own Southern enterprises.

From what I have read, the Government would collect tariffs which were primarily paid for (75-85%)by Southern exports, and they would then spend about 85% of that money in the North building railroads and such.

Not true, on both ends. Tariffs were assessed on imports and paid by people who bought imported goods, and there were more people buying more imported goods in the South. And Whig internal improvement programs didn't get through Congress. The federal government wasn't spending a lot of money on railways, roads, and canals. The Erie Canal Commission in New York state wanted federal funding but didn't get it from Jefferson and Madison, so they did without it.

What would you regard as proof? Obviously the raw numbers of who was producing the import stream and where the money was going is not sufficient to convince you. Likewise the various northern newspaper articles which say the exact same thing as I have been saying, aren't sufficient to convince you. What sort of proof would you find convincing? Signed statements by the power brokers themselves incriminating themselves in the whole affair?

Show that there was a meeting and say who was at the meeting and that would be a start. Germany and Britain were bitter trade rivals in the 20th century, and they fought two wars. But nobody seriously thinks that merchants, bankers and manufacturers wanted those wars or ordered them to be fought. Ditto with the one war fought between the US and Japan. And while we've been struggling with Japan and China economically since then, and we've never had a real economic competitor with Russia, it's with Russia that we had our bitterest political and military rivalry. So it's not always about economics or about business profits.

Then no one should shed any tears that she gets back the same consideration.

If it's lies against lies, people believe the lies they want. If you give up the advantage of truthfulness, what else have you got but just saying what you want to believe - which may not be what other people want to believe.

_______

Somebody could go through step-by-step and point out all the mistakes in your reasoning and all the things you leave out along the way from the fact that New York City made money off the cotton trade to the conclusion that New York businessmen caused or ordered the Civil War, but I don't really have the time, and I don't think it would be worth it. Maybe BroJoe is up to the task.

Oops my boo-boo.

Tariffs were assessed on imports and paid by people who bought imported goods, and there were more people buying more imported goods in the South.

I meant to say, "in the North." Because there were more free working people in the North, and more stores and businesses.

DiogenesLamp: "You jump the shark with your overreach."

Says our world-class master shark jumper himself!