"Could" is irrelevant. "Is" was what was relevant on the cusp of this financial crises for the North.
But does it not occur to you that Union states produced not only about half of US total exports
27%, and that's being generous.
but also $200 million they "exported" to the South and several times that they consumed themselves?
As a consequence of protectionist pricing. With European trade directly to the South, much of those exports would have suffered as well. Northern Newspapers of the time say so themselves.
You desperately hope to focus enough attention away from "slavery, slavery, slavery" in the South and onto "money, money, money" up North, so people will just... sort of... forget, right?
Forget? No! The problem then is the same problem we face now! F***ing New York controls the "News", controls much of entertainment, and constantly promotes nationally policies which help keep the Federal spending party going.
Back in 1995, when Republicans had finally taken over control of congress, I noticed every talking head on the "News" Programs were ridiculing the idea of balancing the Federal budget by reducing spending. Every F***ing bastard one of them were mocking the idea that the budget could or should be balanced, and this always bothered me.
Why? Why would any sane citizen of the USA be against balancing the budget? What sort of lunatic would think this ridiculous spending party could just continue unabated? Then it dawned on me. Those people who profit from excessive government spending would be against balancing the budget, especially by reducing borrowing and spending. So then the realization started to form that these media people were merely agents of the people who profit from government excess spending.
And now it makes sense.
But you want it to be about "slavery" instead of about power, influence and money, because you think the Civil War was about some moral question. It's not. We still face the same enemy that the South faced 150 years ago, and it's still about money and power controlling Washington DC against the interests of the people of America.
But you'll use any modern data that supports your own case, right?
The question isn't regarding whether information is modern or old, it's whether it is relevant. Post 1861 financial events were the consequences of an artificial restraint on trade that would not have occurred without a war. You can't use them to predict what would be the likely financial conditions absent that war.
You have to use projections from before the War, and work with those, because the war fundamentally altered the reality of what would have happened. It skewed all the numbers.
Its pretty funny he’s still replying to me....days after I left the thread since I didn’t see any value in simply contradicting each other for the 17th time. He’s still replying to posts he’s already replied to a week or more ago. Somebody sure is desperate to keep spinning his wheels about this topic for hours on end every single day.
The case stands. Those at the time on all sides openly said it was in essence, a fiscal quarrel as Charles Dickens described it. It was all about money and empire - like most wars throughout history.
The facts show that your "is" did happen in 1861.
Then the real truth was told -- excepting cotton, nearly everything previously classified as "Southern products" was produced in and exported from Union states & regions.
DiogenesLamp on % of Union exports: "27%, and that's being generous."
And that's a Big Lie as was proved in 1861.
Then "Northern", "Western", "specie" and non-cotton "Southern" products totaled about $200 million (see here), about half of 1860's $400 million total (see page 605 here)
DiogenesLamp on "As a consequence of protectionist pricing.
With European trade directly to the South, much of those exports would have suffered as well.
Northern Newspapers of the time say so themselves."
Sure, I "get" you wish us to believe loss of Confederate states would be catastrophic to the Union economy, got it.
And doubtless some were hurt.
I'm merely reporting factually the damage turned out not as great as some expected.
Oh, you say, that's because of the blockade.
No, the blockade was ineffective in 1861, though the Confederate embargo on cotton exports was important.
The fact is that Union states & regions continued and greatly increased their exports, so their economy quickly adjusted.
So, hurt? Sure, but destroyed? No, far from it.
DiogenesLamp on "slavery, slavery, slavery": "Forget? No!
The problem then is the same problem we face now! F***ing New York controls the "News", controls much of entertainment, and constantly promotes nationally policies which help keep the Federal spending party going."
I'd call that some kind of PTSD flash-back, where a discussion on Civil War economics suddenly has DiogenesLamp diving for foxhole cover at the sound of a normal vehicle backfiring "New York".
{sigh}
DiogenesLamp "Back in 1995, when Republicans had finally taken over control of congress, I noticed every talking head on the "News" Programs were ridiculing the idea of balancing the Federal budget by reducing spending. Every F***ing bastard one of them were mocking the idea that the budget could or should be balanced, and this always bothered me."
Sure, in 1995 many of us still thought of CNN as a "fair & balanced" news source because we'd never heard one that truly was.
Of course by 1995 I was a pretty regular Limbaugh listener, so was not totally bamboozled by "mainstream" media.
DiogenesLamp "Why? Why would any sane citizen of the USA be against balancing the budget?
What sort of lunatic would think this ridiculous spending party could just continue unabated?
Then it dawned on me.
Those people who profit from excessive government spending would be against balancing the budget, especially by reducing borrowing and spending.
So then the realization started to form that these media people were merely agents of the people who profit from government excess spending."
Sure, NPR comes to mind, but you should not have been surprised.
And even then we did hear the occasional conservative voice even in "mainstream" media.
It's just that you had to endure a lot of nonsense to get there.
DiogenesLamp "But you want it to be about "slavery" instead of about power, influence and money, because you think the Civil War was about some moral question.
It's not. "
Nonsense, because in 1860 "slavery, slavery, slavery" was the major question facing our Constitutional republic.
And the fact that you today just can't believe it, since you have no personal experience of it -- that fact demonstrates how great was freedom's victory and how amazing our leaders at the time.
So today you wish to reduce, belittle and deny freedom's great 1860s victory and reduce the whole thing to nothing more than "money, money, money" because of why?
Because of some kind of PTSD which has you diving for foxhole cover every time the word "New York" is spoken??
Really, it's just ludicrous and you should be ashamed of yourself for it.