Replies

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.

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.

Of course, a large-scale cotton or sugar planter supplying the British empire was part of the developing global economy and was more of a globalist than a pioneering hunter or a backwoods subsistence farmer or a farmer or craftsman producing for a local market. It certainly makes more sense to say that then to turn some pioneering mill or forge owner was the equivalent of George Soros or Bill Gates. You'd have be deeply prejudiced against a large part of the country to think that that comparison was legitimate.

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.

Get on the same page with your fellow liars. Your pal's whole argument is that the South was rich in the antebellum period. The Cotton South was booming in the 1850s. Planters and Southern intellectuals thought cotton would be king forever and supplying Britain would bring them even greater riches in the future. They said so. At length. Try reading DeBow's Review and other periodicals of the day. By the 1850s the Deep South wasn't the frontier country it had been two generations earlier, and it wasn't the nation's poor problem child it was in the 1890s or 1930s. Cotton planters and traders linked their fate with the growing British empire and even aimed at territorial expansion of their own.

Tariffs were intended to help America's "infant industries" grow -- to produce home-grown industries and end reliance on foreign production and global markets. That rationale was getting little outdated by 1860 and would become seriously wrong-headed with the tremendous growth of manufacturing after the war. But it would be stupid and absurd to argue that the small cotton spinner or iron forger of 1840 or 1850 was some kind of globalist elitist and the large-scale cotton planter was a "small is beautiful" localist. No, a substantial number of cotton planters were territorial expansionists who hitched their fortunes to the British Empire, and plenty of poorer Southerners resented them for their arrogance.

P.S. Ask the Irish or the Indians about your monopolistic political economic system that would control every aspect of their lives without representation. Heck, there were some people in the US who might have felt the same way back then.

HangUpNow to x: "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. "

What you and every pro-Confederate "conveniently ignore" is the historical fact that until 1860, the South ran Washington DC.
Washington was a tool of the South, to accomplish whatever they wished:

Slave-holders' 3/5 rule gave them control over the South.
The South controlled the national Democrat party.
Through its alliance with Northern big city bosses (i.e., Tammany Hall), Democrats were nearly always the majority party in Washington DC.

That means all blubbering nonsense from DiogenesLamp & others about how the South felt so "oppressed" or "disparaged" is just ridiculous, since the South controlled the majority about 90% of the time, until 1861.
As such Southerners wrote the laws which today's pro-Confederates claim so "oppressed" them.