Replies

I think it was less corrupt in the early years when everyone was filled with a sense of idealism. I think most of the corruption started sneaking in with Hamilton's machinations.

When there's more at stake -- more money, more power, more people, more things to control -- there is more corruption, but you attack other people and claim that they think there was no corruption the Civil War, and go on yourself to claim that the years before that were somehow corruption-free. It wasn't that people were more idealistic so much as it was that there was less to steal and it was harder to get away with it.

WWII was initiated for very different reasons than the Civil War. Also, 3/4ths of the federal budget didn't come from the Germans and the Japanese the way it did in the Civil War. There is no clear monetary advantage to us from involving ourselves in WWII.

Clearly, destroying Germany and Japan made us wealthier, more powerful, and more involved globally than we were before. I'm not saying that's why we did it any more than that's why we fought the Civil War, but if you want to see the pursuit of monetary advantage as the reason for the one, it's hard to miss seeing that someone equally cynical could see it as the reason for the other.

And no, the Germans and the Japanese didn't provide us with 3/4th of our federal budget during the Civil War, and the South didn't provide us with 3/4th of our federal budget before that war either. If you understood economics better, you'd understand history better.

DiogenesLamp: "Also, 3/4ths of the federal budget didn't come from the Germans and the Japanese the way it did in the Civil War.
There is no clear monetary advantage to us from involving ourselves in WWII."

Southern propagandists of the time claimed ~75% of Federal tariff revenues were "paid for" by "the South", but it was a lie then, and is still a lie, regardless of how frequently our Lost Cause propagandists repeat it.
The truth of the matter is, in 1860 the South's GDP represented about 15% of total US GDP, and 15% is roughly the loss of Federal tariff revenue in 1861, after Southern secession.
So, Southern cotton was indeed important to the US economy, but it was not "all-important" as claimed by its propagandists.

As for the World Wars, in both the US traded with both sides in the beginnings.
But in the First World War British blockade soon reduced US trade with Germany by 90%, while trade with Britain & France more than tripled.
And along with increased trade came US credit, meaning that the US increasingly depended on Allied victory to get our foreign loans repaid -- yes, we were creditors back then.

In the Second World War, before 1941 the US was Japan's major supplier of not only oil, but also raw scrap iron for the Japanese war machine.
And early in the war there was considerable American oil going to neutral Spain, which could then make its way to Germany.

Point is: early in those wars the US benefitted economically from both sides, though British blockades reduced trade with European Axis powers to near zero, and FDR's foreign policy cut-off Japan from US oil & scrap iron in 1941.

So the US was influenced by, but never slavishly devoted to our own economic self interests.

And no, the Germans and the Japanese didn't provide us with 3/4th of our federal budget during the Civil War, and the South didn't provide us with 3/4th of our federal budget before that war either.

Well then what percentage of the Federal Budget did the southern states provide?

As you know it wasn't 3/4ths (really 72%) then perhaps you can tell me how much it was, and how you arrived at this figure?