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?
No need, it's all fantasy anyway.
So why bother to proof-read?
I think they *WANTED* to be the Globalists of the day, but with all shipping and profits funneling through New York's control, the only way they could *BE* the Globalists of the day, is to get away from that New York Control.
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.
I think those ups and downs would have been more than offset by the absence of the FedGov and New York's cuts of their profits.
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?
You touch upon a point I was going to bring up, but hadn't yet taken the opportunity. Had the Secession movement been successful and made Charleston a port city comparable or exceeding that of New York, we would today be dealing with the consequences of the Global elite operating out of Charleston, rather than New York. I doubt that would be any consolation.
On the other hand, if the commerce split between the two, perhaps the money concentrations would never become so great that people would become that arrogant?
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?
I think after their facilities, their fortunes, their lands and their workforce was destroyed, pretty much everyone saw that coming, they just couldn't do anything about it.
You even bolded your cockamamie assertion? Do YOU read the stuff YOU type up?? +1 on your commitment to believing in what is a laughable mythical theory. I must admit -- I've never heard this one. Taught at Berkeley?
Just what was wrong with the American South being "happy" to find an important trading partner in Britain, whose Big Dawg status you seem obviously to resent? The late 1700s up to the mid 1800s was tumultuous time for trade as well as expansionism. Britain was hardly unique in "seizing" or monopolizing trade or product OR land (*cough*) in their own interest.
And funny -- you don't seem to have a problem with NYC or Boston's economic opportunism at the time as the primary port with whom trade with Britain was facilitated, or their COTTON textile mills.
You've missed Diogenes' entire premise/thesis. NOT exactly surprising.
The South -- obviously an agriculture-based economy, and fragile at that -- thriving on cotton and tobacco -- simply toiled for its own survival, trading with whomever they could. Yes, their #1 trading partner was Big Dawg BRITAIN. Your quote again bears repeating, only because it's so utterly absurd: "The plantation owners and the Confederate government were the globalists of the day."
Briefly, your definition of "Globalists" or "Elites" and "19th Century Style" is apples and oranges -- their economic/political situation can't remotely be compared to today to "Globalists" or "Elites" in ANY sense. TRADING THE ASSETS AND COMMODITIES is how the South (or Confederacy") survived. Period. No conspiracy applied.
Today's "Globalists" OTOH are attempting as its goal (in large measure as seen through the EU lens) to monopolize a political/economic system without representation that would control every facet of our lives by a single authority.
Diogenes' thesis on tariffs is part and parcel of the big picture regarding internal, domestic policies that were patently unfair and biased toward the influential monied North. You've conveniently ignored all the dynamics and factors -- nuanced and obvious, pre-war and post-war.
I am increasingly satisfied that posters like DiogenesLamp and HangUpNow are really Marxists/Democrat/Alinksyite posers consumed with Liberal angst over "the top 1%" or "the rich" and "elites".
That such concerns flow out of pro-Confederates might not be so surprising...