Posted on 02/10/2016 6:50:56 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Yesterday, Politico reported that in a Wall Street speech, Hillary sounded more like "a Goldman Sachs managing director." Today, Bloomberg's Josh Green quoted a financial CEO who attended another Clinton speech as saying Hillary "lavished praise on Wall Street, said you guys are the pillar of our economy." Ruh-roh: how will the increasingly left-wing Dem electorate react to that? GOP strategist Steve Schmidt subsequently said that release of the speech transcripts could be "fatal" for Clinton's campaign.
Happy day after New Hampshire, Hillary! The MSM is not eager to sink Clinton. But the drip, drip, drip of these stories about what Hillary told people who paid her millions for her remarks threaten to swell into an irresistible torrent that will force Clinton to disclose. And when she does . . .
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
I had never contemplated this angle until this last month or so, but the more I consider it, the more sense it makes to me. Lincoln was a masterful politician and new how to stir a crowd into supporting him.
He wouldn't have been able to fight it if he had made the war about lost New England income.
I'm thinking it might be a worthwhile effort to compile evidence to either prove or disprove this idea.
And from handling the products of slave production. With Independence for Southern states, their gravy train was about to stop.
From the New York Herald of March 2, 1861 [my bold emphasis below]:
There has been a great deal of flurry in business circles in this city for a few days past, sending off goods to the South purchased before the 1st of March, on which day the new tariff takes effect. The Congress of the Confederated States have adopted a tariff similar to the United States, imposing the same duties on goods coming from the Northern States as we now pay on those imported from Europe. South Carolina wanted to establish free trade, but she could not have her way in that respect; so that in the future the products and manufactures of the North will have to enter the Southern market subject to the same impost as foreign goods. The new tariff adopted by the Congress at Washington [rb note: the Morrill tariff], if it should become law -- which it will unless Mr. Buchanan keeps it in his breeches pocket -- will surround our commerce with Europe with so many obstructions and difficulties that in conjunction with the disadvantages of the Southern tariff, New York will receive a blow more severe than any it has experienced within fifty years.
The trade of the Southern States, and of the cotton States especially, is of more importance to New York, and indirectly to Boston and Philadelphia also, than the whole trade of the West put together. And for the reason that it is more safe and reliable; because the Southern planter has a fixed locality and a certain property; he has his plantations and his negroes; he is always to be found, and he has on the spot a security for his indebtedness. Hence his pay is always prompt. But in the Northwest, on the other hand, society is like a quicksand; it is continually shifting and changing, rising and falling. There is nothing persistent about it. Its ability to pay is dependent on uncertain crops; there is very little money there; and it is extremely difficult to collect accounts in that section, as many of our merchants know.
The effect of these two tariffs, then, upon our trade with the best, and most reliable part of the country will most disastrously be felt in all the Northern cities. We learn that even now some of the largest houses in the Southern trade in this city, who have not already failed, are preparing to wind up their affairs and abandon business entirely. The result of this as regards the value of property, rents, and real estate, can be readily seen. Within two months from this time it will probably be depreciated from twenty to forty percent.
From the New Orleans Daily Crescent newspaper of May 15, 1861 quoting the New York Day Book newspaper [again, my emphasis below]:
All New York is failing. The suspensions and failures of the past few days have been fearful, and the war promises to bankrupt every merchant in New York. The retail business is as bad off as the wholesale. Nobody is purchasing anything, and trade is killed.
The foreign bill market continues very dull and heavy.
The following is a comparative statement of the imports of foreign dry goods at the port of New York for the week ending April 27:
For the week. 1860 1861
Entered at the port, $1,503,483 $393,061
Thrown on the market, $1,650,790 $396,992
The imports of dry goods are very small this week, probably the least reported for many years.
Well may Mr. Lincoln ask, "What will become of my revenue?"
They also quote the Day Book as saying:
[There] "have been over 200 failures in New York since the 22d April, and within the last month not less than 300. Real estate has no sale at any price and rents are comparatively normal. Total bankruptcy stares all in the face, and starvation will become a daily visitor to the abode of the poor."
The New Orleans paper continues with:
"We of the South knew, months ago, what would come to pass in the North, within a given period after our withdrawal from a union that had become as odious to us as it was oppressive. But we did not expect to see quite so speedy an exhibition of utter insolvency."
Think also about the effect of all this on the Northern shipping industry. Foreign ships would no longer be prohibited from the intercoastal trade in the South. They could drop off cargo in New York, then continue on to Southern ports with the rest of their cargo instead of having to offload the Southern part of cargo in New York to be carried South on American ships.
I have a copy of the original Baltimore Sun article that reported the meeting of a Baltimore delegation with Lincoln where he was reported by a witness as saying, "And what is to become of the revenue? I shall have no government -- no resources." It is no wonder that Lincoln instigated war with the South and blockaded Southern ports.
This is the prime aspect of what I believe to be the real cause of the war. With the Southern Tariff being so much lower, and European demand for Cotton and Tobacco very high, a huge chunk of trade that would ordinarily go through New York and New England, would then go through Charleston, Savanna and New Orleans.
And independent South cuts the financial throats of very powerful men in the New England states.
Lincoln came to power through the support of these men and these areas, and his political philosophy which he acquired from his mentor Henry Clay was "mercantilism."
I take that to mean money and business interests decide his inclination in weighty national matters.
Thanks for posting those newspaper excerpts. They indeed conform to what I have only been recently suspecting about the real cause of the Civil War; The Loss of huge sums of money to the New England states because of a freer trade with the south in the absence of governmental interference with the market.
I shall have no government -- no resources." It is no wonder that Lincoln instigated war with the South and blockaded Southern ports.
Yes, this perspective explains a great deal of things that I never understood. When I was learning about the Civil war in High School, one of the things the teacher mentioned quite a lot was the Union blockade of the Confederacy.
The argument was that it was necessary for the Union to win, but I couldn't comprehend this point. My thinking was that pretty much everyone who was going to fight for the Confederacy was already there, and so what did a blockade have to do with winning the war?
The South had guns, they had men, they had horses, they had the tools to make more guns and weapons, so how is the Blockade crucial to winning the war?
Looking at things from an economical perspective, it becomes very obvious why they needed to blockade southern ports and why it was essential to winning the war.
If the European powers were allowed to get acclimated to making much greater profits from dealing with the Confederacy, it would reach a point where European support for their independence would become too powerful to oppose.
Let the Europeans become accustomed to making far greater profits in trade directly with the South, and it would cause them to have a very strong interest in making certain the South remain independent.
For the Union, it would have lost the war. Allowing European shipping into the Confederacy would have simply lost the war. Not from anything the Europeans might ship over to the South, but from the realization that European financial interests were very much enhanced by trade directly with the South.
And this makes sense. The war wasn't about slavery, it was about money. Who gains it and who loses it. That's what the war was fought about.
"Slavery" was just a propaganda tool.
The economic argument explains Lincoln's motives in instigating a war.
He sent an armed expedition down to Fort Sumter that his cabinet had warned would cause a shooting war.
He started the official planning for the Fort Sumter expedition immediately after the Senate adjourned its special session on March 28. At that point in time, it was widely circulated that Fort Sumter was to be evacuated. That's what the Confederate Commissioners had been told by Seward. That's what Lincoln's personal messenger Ward Lamon had intimated to South Carolina's Governor Pickens.
The special session's very last act on March 28 was to check with the President to see whether he had anything to tell them. From the Congressional Globe:
Mr. Powell, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States and notify him that unless he has some further communication to make, the Senate is ready to adjourn, reported that the committee had waited on the President, and been informed by him that he had no further communication to make to the Senate.
On March 29, Lincoln officially ordered Welles and Cameron to prepare the secret relief expedition to Sumter. Actually however, if I remember correctly, a draft plan document was started on the 28th. Wasn't an expedition that would likely or possibly result in a shooting war important enough to inform the Senate?
Lincoln did not call for Congress to reconvene until July 4. In contrast, Jefferson Davis reconvened his Congress in a little more than two weeks. Shouldn't Lincoln's Congress have been involved in questions of war and peace? By keeping his Congress out of session, Lincoln was able to do various things without checks and balances (redirecting authorized budget money to things which had not been approved by Congress, changing the enrollment period for troops from what Congress had authorized, assuming legislative and judicial powers that were not his under the Constitution, starting a blockade of Southern ports).
A blockade was a recognized act of war. Open hostilities between sides may or may not be. The US Supreme Court later ruled that the war started on April 19th when Lincoln issued his proclamation of the blockade. [Link].
Lincoln succeeded in manipulating the country into war. However, that was not what I was taught in high school American history class.
Me either. I was taught that he was a Hero and he fought the Civil War to free the slaves.
I have come to regard this as an ex post facto justification for the horrors that were unleashed upon the nation.
Amazing how, with all the contrary evidence in abundance, that myth lives on.
This is just another aspect of a conflict we have long been fighting. It's about who controls the Narrative. Currently the narrative is pushed from New York Liberal Democrats, (News) and Los Angeles Liberal Democrats. (Entertainment)
In the after math of the civil war, there was no means by which northern cities could be informed to the extent necessary regarding what actually happened and why.
They were fed a media narrative, they wanted to believe that narrative, and they endlessly repeated that narrative.
Even today, descendants of Union soldiers want to believe their ancestors were the good guys. They do not even wish to entertain the thought that their ancestors might have been the bad guys.
That the war was fought to end slavery is their fig leaf to which they desperately cling. They think "it must be true, because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate."
I think that is the simple truth right there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.