Replies

That being said in January, by late March, the general merchants grasped the significance of Raymond’s remarks and were prepared to support strong action against the South and its tariff. Over one hundred leading commercial importers in New York, as well as a similar group in Boston, informed the US collectors of customs they would not pay duties on imported goods unless those same duties were also collected at Southern ports.

This threat was likely the proximate cause of the beginning of the war. It forced Lincoln and his administration to abandon the initial inclination to turn over Ft. Sumter to the Confederates.

Money. The North fought the war against the South to protect their money. Indeed, I perceive that the Globalist Elite of New York (they grew beyond merely trade with Europe) are this very day, the threat we are currently seeing against us.

Still do they put their pocket books ahead of the interests of the majority in the country. New York, the "EMPIRE STATE" (That's a clue, folks) runs the media today, and thereby steers public opinion to support ideas and policies which they see as beneficial to them, but not necessarily so much in the interests of "Flyover Country."

The monster of Crony Capitalism opened it's eye in 1861, and has had us under it's baleful influence ever since.

It is the same today as it was then. The power flows from the Washington D.C./ New York oligarchy.

The North fought the war against the South to protect their money. Indeed, I perceive that the Globalist Elite of New York (they grew beyond merely trade with Europe) are this very day, the threat we are currently seeing against us.

Does Diogenes read over the stuff he types up? The plantation owners and the Confederate government were the globalists of the day. They were happy to make money supplying British industry with raw material at a time when the British Empire was seizing markets by force in India, the East Indies, China, and Africa.

They were willing to make their country subject to the ups and downs of the cotton market and dependent on British industrial production. That's globalism or globalization -- nineteenth century style. And they certainly were the Globalist Elite of the day.

Your whole argument about tariffs is based on the Nineteenth century version of globalization. You brag about the Southern ability to use the global economy to get around the tariffs that Northern manufacturers want to encourage home-grown industry. Where do you get off complaining about Globalists?

The plantation owners and Confederate elite thought that Britain would always be the workshop of the world, the Earth's spinner and weaver, and that they'd always be Britain's chief supplier of cotton. That was foolish.

The same empire and same process of globalization that they supported encouraged cotton production in other parts of the world -- and eventually, the cotton mills and clothing trade moved there. How come y'all didn't see any of that coming?

DiogenesLamp: "The North fought the war against the South to protect their money."

You will know precisely how true your own statement is if you simply reverse it and say, "Average poor Southerners served the Confederate Army to protect the wealth and institutions of slave holders".

As virtually every pro-Confederate here adamantly insists, that is simply not the case.
Average poor Southerners, who didn't own slaves, served the Confederate Army to protect their families and homes against "damn-Yankee" invaders.

Likewise, average Union soldiers and their officers had no interest in, what was your term for it? "New England Power Brokers".
They did, at first wish to preserve the Union and in the end to abolish slavery, issues having nothing to do with high finance or even basic economics, but simply the right & wrong of it.

So the only real question is whether Lincoln himself was driven by those nasty "New England Power Brokers", since Lincoln was at first almost the only member of his administration who wanted to defend Fort Sumter?
The answer is: aside from your alleged quote, "what about my tariff?", which even if true could mean almost anything, depending on context -- there's no evidence of it.

What the evidence does suggest is that Lincoln wanted to preserve Fort Sumter as a "bargaining chip" to be traded for something of value, such as the state of Virginia remaining in the Union.

DiogenesLamp: "The monster of Crony Capitalism opened it's eye in 1861, and has had us under it's baleful influence ever since."

Total rubbish.
The US has been capitalistic ever since the Pilgrims, after 1620, figured out (the hard way) that socialism doesn't work.
US government officials have depended on financiers (i.e., Haym Salomon) and wealthy citizens (i.e., George Washington) from Day One of the republic.
That some of these associations may have been corrupt or "crony capitalism" can be assumed, but not that they all were, or that all were harmful.
Scandals in US history are noteworthy in that they illustrate the exceptions, not the rule.

So there's no objective evidence, none, that either politicians or businessmen were more or less corrupt after 1860 than they were before.

But DiogenesLamp insane fixation the alleged evils of such ill-defined "classes" of people as "New England Power Brokers" suggests his Marxist education was more influential than anything true he ever learned about US history.