What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

How do you know what the future would possibly have held for the CSA?

How can you look at the geography of the New World and tell certain places (Such as New York and San Fransisco) were destined to become Wealthy? Economics and human nature are not that difficult to predict in broad outlines.

The South had a cash cow, and if left alone that cash cow would have capitalized them, and eventually even the stupidest people realize they need to do something with their money. They put the money to work.

We know that the CSA was more statist than the US during the 1861-1865 Civil War.

As I've mentioned before, I give the people who are defending themselves from an attack more leeway than I do the people who are invading someone else. The Defenders are often under far greater pressure, and so it is not unreasonable for them to do whatever they think is necessary to stop the attack.

But in what way are you alleging that the CSA was more statist than the USA?

"you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom.
A. LINCOLN.

Did you even bother to read my post?

Yes, but the evidence of what is, overwhelms it. There is a reason why all these states vote with the South. Absent the Civil War, they would have been doing so a long time ago.

I thought pretty much as you did when I was in high school and convinced that the teachers had it all wrong.

Well now this is very strange. Most people grow up believing as you do now, and so did I. I never questioned the righteousness of the Civil War until my best friend (black guy from Baltimore who majored in history) put doubts into my mind about it. Oh sure, there were things that didn't make any sense to me when I learned of them in High School (The Blockade never made sense to me then, it does now.) but all in all, I just accepted the common opinion on the topic.

Why would you believe differently from what most people believe? What information could you have had that the rest of us lacked? Am I to surmise that you grew up in the South, and that they teach such things there?

I had always believed that the Union was in the right, and that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. It was only in the last couple of decades that I had developed any doubt, and only in the last three years that I have realized a different explanation makes far better sense than what I had always been told.

So how did you go the opposite way from me?

The price of cotton was bound to go down as new producers, both at home and abroad, got into the game. Prices only recently reached the level they were at in 1870, and this has been a boon to the world's largest producers -- China and India. But they are both too smart to think that producing a raw commodity like cotton could be the sole base of a major world economy.

But in what way are you alleging that the CSA was more statist than the USA?

You could do your own research. Suffice it to say that the Confederate economy was closely controlled by the government in a system that has been described as "war socialism." You even had to have a government-issued travel permit to take a railroad trip. The CSA wasn't any kind of libertarian utopia. You can say it was because of the war, but a slave-based economy necessarily involves tight control over travel and the labor force.

So how did you go the opposite way from me?

I was precocious, I guess. I went through the adolescent rebel stage -- at least when it came to politics -- back when I was in high school, and then I grew up. Maybe you will too some day.

The price of cotton was bound to go down as new producers, both at home and abroad, got into the game.

I've addressed this point several times. Without that blockade, it would have been difficult to create alternative producers, because they had such control of the market that they could have kept running anyone else out of business.

Ignoring the immorality of slavery, who can compete against free labor if they have to pay for their labor? Economically, it's impossible, unless you use slavery yourself.

The only thing that made foreign competition possible is Union ships blockading shipments to Europe. New areas of Domestic production would have either been controlled by, or allied with the existing producers.

You could do your own research. Suffice it to say that the Confederate economy was closely controlled by the government in a system that has been described as "war socialism."

And you some how believe that the "War" system was going to be the "Peace" system too? You can't use the artificial conditions created as a consequence of having to fight off an invasion as proof that they would have done the same thing if they hadn't been trying to fight off an invasion. Their arguments for Federalism indicate that their intent was to do no such thing, but they turned to more control as a necessity because of the war.

You and others keep trying to compare "Peace" conditions with "War" conditions, as if they would have been exactly the same.

No. If Lincoln hadn't launched his war, they would have taken over the Trade with Europe, and then they would have been racking up piles of money, and they would have been subjected to far more immigration in pursuit of jobs that came as a result of the extra money.

They would have been able to stave off foreign competition, because, let's face it, you can't get cheaper than "free" when it comes to labor.

You even had to have a government-issued travel permit to take a railroad trip. The CSA wasn't any kind of libertarian utopia. You can say it was because of the war, but a slave-based economy necessarily involves tight control over travel and the labor force.

Did you have to have such a government-issued travel permit before the war?

I was precocious, I guess. I went through the adolescent rebel stage -- at least when it came to politics -- back when I was in high school, and then I grew up.

I was naive. I used to accept what people told me. Then I found out a lot of what people told me, turned out to not be true. Eventually I became cynical, and don't believe anything people tell me unless it is supported by some sort of evidence.

Cynicism is what made me realize the civil war was no noble cause launched by the milk of human kindness. It was a war for power and money, launched for greed, same as most wars.

DiogenesLamp: "But in what way are you alleging that the CSA was more statist than the USA?"

"you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers..."

How about these ways:

"Vice President Alexander H. Stephens feared losing the very form of republican government.
Allowing President Davis to threaten 'arbitrary arrests' to draft hundreds of governor-appointed 'bomb-proof' bureaucrats conferred 'more power than the English Parliament had ever bestowed on the king.
History proved the dangers of such unchecked authority.'[233]
The abolishment of draft exemptions for newspaper editors was interpreted as an attempt by the Confederate government to muzzle presses, such as the Raleigh NC Standard, to control elections and to suppress the peace meetings there."

"The Confederacy actively used the army to arrest people suspected of loyalty to the United States.
Historian Mark Neely found 4,108 names of men arrested and estimated a much larger total.[261]
The Confederacy arrested pro-Union civilians in the South at about the same rate as the Union arrested pro-Confederate civilians in the North.[262]
Neely argues:
The Confederate citizen was not any freer than the Union citizen – and perhaps no less likely to be arrested by military authorities.
In fact, the Confederate citizen may have been in some ways less free than his Northern counterpart.
For example, freedom to travel within the Confederate states was severely limited by a domestic passport system.[263]"

DiogenesLamp: "There is a reason why all these states vote with the South.
Absent the Civil War, they would have been doing so a long time ago."

No, absent Civil War Confederates would never abolish slavery:

"...the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.[33]"

The Confederate Constitution made explicit what DiogenesLamp claims the US Constitution implied, as SCOTUS in Dred Scott ruled.

But the fact remains that Northern states would not tolerate slavery, period, and would therefore never join the C.S.A.

DiogenesLamp: "Oh sure, there were things that didn't make any sense to me when I learned of them in High School (The Blockade never made sense to me then, it does now.) but all in all, I just accepted the common opinion on the topic."

How could the Union blockade not "make sense"?
It's perfectly obvious and had been used by Brits against Americans (among others) in every war.
So what idea of "sense" would that not match?

DiogenesLamp: "I had always believed that the Union was in the right, and that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.
It was only in the last couple of decades that I had developed any doubt, and only in the last three years that I have realized a different explanation makes far better sense than what I had always been told."

And there's that word, "sense" again, what can it mean, whose "sense"?
DiogenesLamp's explanation of "sense" boils down to "money, money, money" to the exclusion of all other motives.
And what version of "sense" is that?
As I've posted before, in only one "sense", and that's Marxist-Stalinist dialectical materialism.
Marx took Hegelian dialectics and reduced it to economics, or "money, money, money" and class warfare as in "Northeastern power brokers" or a "New York cartel" versus poor exploited Southern producers.

Confronted with his Marxism in the past, DiogenesLamp denies it, claiming he's not a Marxist but really just a libertarian who believes in the inherent "right of secession" at pleasure.
But it's a very odd "libertarianism" which discounts all values except "money, money, money", the alleged "right of secession" and class warfare against a "New York cartel" or "Northeastern power brokers".

But the biggest factor telling us something is amiss in DiogenesLamp's story of converting to the Lost Cause, is the fact that he's swallowed every word of it, uncritically, hook, line & sinker, and regurgitates to us verbatim, regardless of how verifiable any element may or may not be.

So DiogenesLamp's rejection of true history in favor of Lost Cause mythology was in no sense a critical evaluation of both, but rather some sort of religious conversion resulting in 100% rejection of the former and acceptance of the latter.
My guess is that results from something important, like a romantic interest or job, but DiogenesLamp won't admit to anything beyond his frequently repeated script.

DiogenesLamp: "If the laws of nature and of nature's God can break allegiance owed to a thousand year old monarchy, then it is certainly sufficient to break all lesser enduring forms of governance."

And still more nonsense, it never stops with DiogenesLamp.
Our Declaration of Independence refers first to necessity:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary"

The Declaration clearly spells out the necessity, in two dozen items, including:

"He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."

Nothing remotely resembling such necessity existed after the November 8, 1860 presidential election, and yet Deep South Fire Eaters immediately began organizing to declare unilateral unapproved secession at pleasure.

That's why even the North's most Southern-sympathetic Doughfaces like Democrat President Buchanan did not see Fire Eater secession as constitutionally legitimate.
And slave-holders in Upper South and Border slave-states totally refused to secede, so long as they considered it nothing more than at pleasure.
Virginians did not believe the Constitution had been "perverted to their injury or oppression" and so refused to secede in early 1861, until after Jefferson Davis gave them a war to make secession "necessary".

But even then Border States didn't think secession "necessary" and so still refused.

But brilliant as he is, DiogenesLamp has never figured that out, even when it's pointed out clearly to him.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.