How can you look at the geography of the New World and tell certain places (Such as New York and San Fransisco) were destined to become Wealthy? Economics and human nature are not that difficult to predict in broad outlines.
The South had a cash cow, and if left alone that cash cow would have capitalized them, and eventually even the stupidest people realize they need to do something with their money. They put the money to work.
We know that the CSA was more statist than the US during the 1861-1865 Civil War.
As I've mentioned before, I give the people who are defending themselves from an attack more leeway than I do the people who are invading someone else. The Defenders are often under far greater pressure, and so it is not unreasonable for them to do whatever they think is necessary to stop the attack.
But in what way are you alleging that the CSA was more statist than the USA?
"you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command the editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom.A. LINCOLN.
Did you even bother to read my post?
Yes, but the evidence of what is, overwhelms it. There is a reason why all these states vote with the South. Absent the Civil War, they would have been doing so a long time ago.
I thought pretty much as you did when I was in high school and convinced that the teachers had it all wrong.
Well now this is very strange. Most people grow up believing as you do now, and so did I. I never questioned the righteousness of the Civil War until my best friend (black guy from Baltimore who majored in history) put doubts into my mind about it. Oh sure, there were things that didn't make any sense to me when I learned of them in High School (The Blockade never made sense to me then, it does now.) but all in all, I just accepted the common opinion on the topic.
Why would you believe differently from what most people believe? What information could you have had that the rest of us lacked? Am I to surmise that you grew up in the South, and that they teach such things there?
I had always believed that the Union was in the right, and that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. It was only in the last couple of decades that I had developed any doubt, and only in the last three years that I have realized a different explanation makes far better sense than what I had always been told.
So how did you go the opposite way from me?
The price of cotton was bound to go down as new producers, both at home and abroad, got into the game. Prices only recently reached the level they were at in 1870, and this has been a boon to the world's largest producers -- China and India. But they are both too smart to think that producing a raw commodity like cotton could be the sole base of a major world economy.
But in what way are you alleging that the CSA was more statist than the USA?
You could do your own research. Suffice it to say that the Confederate economy was closely controlled by the government in a system that has been described as "war socialism." You even had to have a government-issued travel permit to take a railroad trip. The CSA wasn't any kind of libertarian utopia. You can say it was because of the war, but a slave-based economy necessarily involves tight control over travel and the labor force.
So how did you go the opposite way from me?
I was precocious, I guess. I went through the adolescent rebel stage -- at least when it came to politics -- back when I was in high school, and then I grew up. Maybe you will too some day.
How about these ways:
No, absent Civil War Confederates would never abolish slavery:
The Confederate Constitution made explicit what DiogenesLamp claims the US Constitution implied, as SCOTUS in Dred Scott ruled.
But the fact remains that Northern states would not tolerate slavery, period, and would therefore never join the C.S.A.
How could the Union blockade not "make sense"?
It's perfectly obvious and had been used by Brits against Americans (among others) in every war.
So what idea of "sense" would that not match?
DiogenesLamp: "I had always believed that the Union was in the right, and that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.
It was only in the last couple of decades that I had developed any doubt, and only in the last three years that I have realized a different explanation makes far better sense than what I had always been told."
And there's that word, "sense" again, what can it mean, whose "sense"?
DiogenesLamp's explanation of "sense" boils down to "money, money, money" to the exclusion of all other motives.
And what version of "sense" is that?
As I've posted before, in only one "sense", and that's Marxist-Stalinist dialectical materialism.
Marx took Hegelian dialectics and reduced it to economics, or "money, money, money" and class warfare as in "Northeastern power brokers" or a "New York cartel" versus poor exploited Southern producers.
Confronted with his Marxism in the past, DiogenesLamp denies it, claiming he's not a Marxist but really just a libertarian who believes in the inherent "right of secession" at pleasure.
But it's a very odd "libertarianism" which discounts all values except "money, money, money", the alleged "right of secession" and class warfare against a "New York cartel" or "Northeastern power brokers".
But the biggest factor telling us something is amiss in DiogenesLamp's story of converting to the Lost Cause, is the fact that he's swallowed every word of it, uncritically, hook, line & sinker, and regurgitates to us verbatim, regardless of how verifiable any element may or may not be.
So DiogenesLamp's rejection of true history in favor of Lost Cause mythology was in no sense a critical evaluation of both, but rather some sort of religious conversion resulting in 100% rejection of the former and acceptance of the latter.
My guess is that results from something important, like a romantic interest or job, but DiogenesLamp won't admit to anything beyond his frequently repeated script.