Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp; rockrr
And No, I don't think the South wanted a weaker United States, they just wanted a United States that would protect their interests, and not make them foot the bill for people in the North who hated them and constantly maligned them.

I'm talking about 1861. Secessionists already wanted their own country. They wanted out of the US and they wanted the US to be as weak as possible. Whatever they might have wanted years before, is there really any room for argument about that?

I can think of no circumstances in which more money and profit will not create more economic activity and jobs, and I doubt you can either, but you insist on believing it in the case of the South taking away the European trade from New York.

There was a relatively efficient economic system going at the time -- whatever one's moral judgment of it. Tear it apart and you don't necessarily get anything better. Thinking you can cut out the "middleman" and automatically grow rich is a mistake. Look at how many countries threw off the rule of foreign imperialists and actually ended up worse economically, and you'll see that your argument here is wrong.

132 posted on 05/24/2018 3:28:37 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]


To: x
They wanted out of the US and they wanted the US to be as weak as possible.

And why would they want that? This sounds like the old saying about Russians who didn't want a cow for themselves, they just wanted their neighbor's cow to die.

There was a relatively efficient economic system going at the time -- whatever one's moral judgment of it. Tear it apart and you don't necessarily get anything better.

I think "better" would depend on whether you were on the receiving end of economic gain or not. Jobs would have moved south, and so would have some of the shipping industry. This would have stimulated further economic growth along all sorts of diverse industries.

Thinking you can cut out the "middleman" and automatically grow rich is a mistake.

If it were less profitable to do it some other way, what need for protectionist laws and tariffs? Do not their very existence serve as proof that costs would have been cut without them?

Look at how many countries threw off the rule of foreign imperialists and actually ended up worse economically, and you'll see that your argument here is wrong.

I only know this being true of backward third world countries. I don't know of any western style countries that did worse on their own.

Also, here is more proof of the "Deep State", that i've been talking about. Others are starting to see it too. It's going mainstream.

135 posted on 05/24/2018 4:09:39 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson