(Realistically) "Re-Fighting" The Civil War; Long-Overdue

[PLC1]

From Little-Acorn's post:

But there was another issue. For years before the CW, Congress had passed increasingly oppressive tariffs and duties on Southern goods. Technically, all those tariffs applied equally to all states, not just the Southern ones. But in fact, taxes on exports of farm goods (tobacco, wheat, rice, cotton etc.) hit the South far harder than the North, since the South exported huge amounts while the North exported very little of those things. Most of the South's economy consisted of massive farming, and exporting its products to the North and to other countries, and using the money to buy machinery, clothing, and most hard goods, which were not made in the South.

Now, we see the heart of the matter. The civil war, like the revolutionary war, was fought in large part due to unfair taxation.

Does anyone see a lesson to be learned that might, just might apply to our own day and time? anyone, anyone?

 

[Andy]

Side?

The "third"-side, I guess......Corporate Greed.​

Really... So you can cite some evidence that Lincoln was forced by corporations in 1861, to start civil war? That seems a bit off to me. I have never found any evidence of this, in our country, or any other.

Ironically what is cited as evidence, should be obvious. For example, Korten cites laws passed by the British, forcing all exports from the colonies, to first pass through Briton. Laws against manufacturing of raw materials into products. Instead the raw materials were shipped to England, made into products and shipped back.

But this never was, nor is, considered a result of corporate influence. It was well known from the very start, that England considered their colonies to be a tool for the advancement of the British Empire. The banning of local manufacturing, and the control of exports was promoted by the government itself for two reasons. First it benefited the homeland. To the government, that was the entire of purpose of the colony to begin with. Second, it made the colonies dependent on the homeland. A method for trying to keep the colonies in line.

I think often liberals see corporations getting contracts under war time, and assume the corporations must have been the prime mover in getting them. That's not exactly true. War happens, and then corporations take advantage of the opportunities that arise due to war.

Corporations do not cause war. If they did, there would be evidence of this, that isn't circumstantial in nature. Which right now, that's all this theory has, is a bunch of circumstances, that are glued together to create the illusion that they must have caused it. But in reality, in any war, someone has to get the contracts. And usually it's a corporation because only corporations have the assets, capital, and work force to do the job that needs done. That doesn't meant they 'caused' the war.

Interestingly, many seem fond of citing Lincoln saying corporations have taken over, and an era of corruption will follow. Curious, does anyone remember the era of corruption that followed? Seems to me, the following 50 years were some of the best for America. Beyond that, corruption is universal. Wherever man is, corruption is. There didn't seem to be any 'more' corruption after Lincoln than at any other time.

 

[Little-Acorn]

From Little-Acorn's post:



Now, we see the heart of the matter. The civil war, like the revolutionary war, was fought in large part due to unfair taxation.

Does anyone see a lesson to be learned that might, just might apply to our own day and time? anyone, anyone?

From another Little-Acorn post:

The South yammered loud and long over "states' rights". But at the same time, they were serving as the poster child for the truism that if you abuse your "rights" badly enough and long enough, sooner or later a stern parent will step in, spank you, and take those rights away, whether justly or not. And they will run things themselves, often to everybody's detriment (compared to independence and freedom).

The South did exactly that with slavery. It was a horrible abuse of the "right" of states to determine their own destiny, and the North stepped in and beat it out of them. The North also abused the South in various ways supposedly unconnected with slavery, but they used the South's slavery as a justification for it (tariffs etc.). And we are all worse off for it having happened, with a larger Federal govt taking over things that were formerly left to the states.

The South still whines about "States' rights", especially when they get sufficiently likkered up, and points to the very real abuses the North committed against them long before the War. But if they hadn't thrown away their own "States' rights" with both hands, by dreadfully abusing their black population and concocting bizarre lies like "They aren't people, they're only property", very little of it would have happened at all, and they'd have a lot more "States' rights today.

The Civil War was fought in large part over slavery. Unfair taxation, while important, was a smaller part of it. And if there had been no unfair taxation, the war still would have been fought, because slavery was its main issue.

Today, the situation is very different. Slavery has ceased to exist, but while the current administration has not yet raised taxes, their shocking increases in spending make HUGE tax increases inevitable. Inflation and time deferrals can only soften the blow so much. And the worst part is, interest on the soon-to-be-tripled National Debt alone, will shortly cost us more per taxpayer, than ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING in last year's budget.

 

[PLC1]

From another Little-Acorn post:


The Civil War was fought in large part over slavery. Unfair taxation, while important, was a smaller part of it. And if there had been no unfair taxation, the war still would have been fought, because slavery was its main issue.

Today, the situation is very different. Slavery has ceased to exist, but while the current administration has not yet raised taxes, their shocking increases in spending make HUGE tax increases inevitable. Inflation and time deferrals can only soften the blow so much. And the worst part is, interest on the soon-to-be-tripled National Debt alone, will shortly cost us more per taxpayer, than ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING in last year's budget.

OK, so there is no slavery today, at least in the US.

There is still taxation, and a lot of unrest because of it.

And, as you said, if the national debt should triple, which is a possibility, then each and every American would owe over a hundred thousand dollars. Each taxpayer would probably owe around two hundred thousand, or close to it.

At an interest rate of, say, 5%, that thirty trillion would cost let's see...

30 trillion is 3x10^13, multiply by 5%, or 5x10^-2, you get 15, subtract the -2 and you get 15 x10^11, or 1.5x10^12.

Written in conventional notation, that is 1,500,000,000,000, or one and a half trillion.

Which, is a lot more than is currently being spent on the military, which costs 7 times as much as Russia's military.

And that is just to service the debt at 5%. There is, of course, no guarantee that interest won't get a lot higher than that, and no return whatsoever on that money.

Scary, isn't it?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Oh well, his opening post was worthwhile, anyway.

The South yammered loud and long over "states' rights". But at the same time, they were serving as the poster child for the truism that if you abuse your "rights" badly enough and long enough, sooner or later a stern parent will step in, spank you, and take those rights away, whether justly or not. And they will run things themselves, often to everybody's detriment (compared to independence and freedom).

I'm no big-fan of the politics of The Old South, but most armed-conflicts are (typically) about CA$H!!!!!!!​

"The Panic of 1837 and the ensuing depression began to gnaw like a hungry animal on the flesh of the American system. The disparity between northern and southern economies was exacerbated. Before and after the depression the economy of the South prospered. Southern cotton sold abroad totaled 57% of all American exports before the war. The Panic of 1857 devastated the North and left the South virtually untouched. The clash of a wealthy, agricultural South and a poorer, industrial North was intensified by abolitionists who were not above using class struggle to further their cause."​

"The more things change, the more they are the same." - Alphonse Karr

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I see....


So in Sham world.... The reason the left hates Wal-mart so much is because they are part of the 'Military-Industrial Complex' that Eisenhower spoke of in 1961...

Yeah, Skippy.....sure, Skippy.....that's what I'm saying, Skippy.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I once saw a monument in Camden, Maine, a memorial to those who lost thier lives in the 'Great Rebellion'.

I also once saw a monument in Georgia, a memorial to those who lost their lives in "The War of Northern Aggression'.

I also once saw a plaque, in Quebec, a memorial to the courage and valiance of the brave hero Benedict Arnold, who ably defended the city in 1778 or so, the exact year, I forget).

The point? In a war, someone's good is someone else's evil. Even someone's traitor is someone else's hero. Right and wrong is often lost.

No doubt....and, as usual....much like the Present.....those who're profitting-the-most, snow the general-population with easy-answers for The Conflict.

Fortunately, for The Profiteer$....at least, in the U.S. .....the majority of the general-population is stupid-enough....rather, lazy-enough....to BUY the Profiteer$ B.S.-ju$tification$!!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Benedict Arnold was one of George Washington's most able, loyal generals; and helped win some terrific victories for the American side. He deserved the accolades he got for doing those things.

Then he decided to turn traitor, and give the British secrets about the layout of the fort at West Point and other such things. For that, he deserves the vilification and deepest contempt of the American people.

Yeah.....that'd be the easy-answer......​

"At fifteen, Arnold enlisted in the Connecticut militia. The militia marched to Albany and Lake George to oppose the French invasion from Canada at the Battle of Fort William Henry. However, he never engaged in battle during the war. The British suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the French under Montcalm. The British surrendered on the conditions that they could evacuate the fort under safe conduct and could keep their weapons, but the Indian allies of the French, who had been promised scalps, arms, and booty, attacked and massacred several hundred of the men, women, and children. The French regulars could not or did not stop the Indians. This event may have created an abiding hatred for the French in a young and impressionable Arnold that influenced his actions later in life.

Arnold was in the West Indies when the Boston Massacre occurred on March 5, 1770, but later he wrote that he was "very much shocked" and wondered "good God; are the Americans all asleep and tamely giving up their liberties, or are they all turned philosophers, that they don't take immediate vengeance on such miscreants".

After the British withdrew from Philadelphia in June 1778 the Continentals occupied it and Washington appointed Arnold military commander of the city. In June he learned of the Franco-American alliance, which he strongly opposed because of his earlier experiences in the French and Indian War.

During the summer of 1778, after assuming the military leadership of Philadelphia, he met Peggy Shippen, the 18-year-old daughter of Judge Edward Shippen, a Loyalist sympathizer who had done business with the British while they occupied the city. Peggy had been courted by British Major John André during the British occupation of Philadelphia. Radical Patriots in Philadelphia, aware of Arnold's cultivation of pro-Tory wealthy families, and jealous of his authority, essentially smeared his name in February 1779 with a variety of charges that he was abusing his power. He demanded a full court martial, writing to Washington in May, "Having become a cripple in the service of my country, I little expected to meet [such] ungrateful returns". The court martial would be held in December of that year."​

There are no easy-answers for the way a lot of things unfold.....despite the "conservatives'" efforts, otherwise.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Corporations do not cause war.

Yeah.....sure.....

​

“War is a racket. It always has been…A racket is best described as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many.

I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.”​

 

[Andy]

Yeah.....sure.....

​

Can you show any evidence that anyone listed in that article actually pushed for war?

Basically you are condenming these people for taking advantage of the situation they didn't create. Which is exactly what I said in my prior post.

Even in your own article, it mentions...

"...Only twenty-four at the (Civil) war's beginning, (J. Pierpont) Morgan perceived from the first that wars were for the shrewd to profit from and poor to die in…He received a tip that a store of government-owned rifles had been condemned as defective and with the simplicity of genius he bought them from the government for $17,500 on one day and sold them back to the government on the next for $110,000...A Congressional committee investigating his little deal said of him and other hijacking profiteers, 'Worse than traitors are the men who, pretending loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation.'"[3]

Note: Did J.P. Morgan condemn the rifles? No. Who allowed him to buy them? Government. Who authorized their repurchase? Government. So who setup the entire situation? Government.

Basically you are condemning J.P. Morgan for being smart enough to take advantage of the situation he had no way to create or control. Anyone in the same situation would have done the same. In fact, what he did is no different than the people who take advantage of Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Food Stamps, or any other government program.

This is the same non-thinking that rules the entire leftist party.

 

[Andy]

Yeah, Skippy.....sure, Skippy.....that's what I'm saying, Skippy.

​

Well I did ask why you were so anti-corporation, and Wal-mart is the biggest target on Liberals anti-corporate hit list, and the link you gave was about the Industrial-military complex.

So... what exactly is any thinking person supposed to assume based on your botched half-baked posts?

 

[BigRob]

Side?

The "third"-side, I guess......Corporate Greed.​

"The U.S. Civil War (1861-65) marked a turning point for corporate I rights. Violent anti-draft riots rocked the cities and left the political system in disarray. With huge profits pouring in from military procurement contracts, industrial interests were able to take advantage of the disorder and rampant political corruption to virtually buy legislation that gave them massive grants of money and land to expand the Western railway system. The greater its profits, the more tightly the emergent industrial class was able to solidify its hold on government to obtain further benefits. Seeing what was unfolding, President Abraham Lincoln observed just before his death:

"Corporations have been enthroned....An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people.....until wealth is aggregated in a few hands.....and the Republic is destroyed."

I think this might indicate more that companies could take advantage of a collapsing political order, but I do not see the causal connection that shows any company was the actual cause of this political disarray. I think that is a pretty big distinction.

I am not sure I see a clear connection, at least based on the evidence you present, that corporations were the cause of war, only simply that they benefited from the war, which is unavoidable in my opinion and is not a bad thing.

Edit: As I read up on Andy's posts, I see he already alludes to this distinction as well.