Why the insult to people who've often made intelligent and important comments?
Does this mean you think the matter which you refer to as a "hijack" should be further discussed, but with more input from your side?
No, I just think it's funny what you're doing here, and other people will get a laugh or at least a smile seeing it.
I'm game either way. I like keeping the focus on the financial interests in these secession questions.
You didn't start in with the "financial interests" but with an attack on Lincoln for wanting a war. And you don't look at either the mercenary or the war-mongering aspects of the secessionist movement. How about focusing on those for a while?
Also you haven't really addressed the "financial interests" involved in California secession. No, it's a cheap shot at Lincoln and then, eventually, on to the regurgitated stuff about the tariff.
Try to read what you've written here with unbiased eyes. It really is a hijacking or mugging or holding for ransom of the thread. Funny in a way. But also sad.
Have you read rockrr's comments?
You didn't start in with the "financial interests" but with an attack on Lincoln for wanting a war. And you don't look at either the mercenary or the war-mongering aspects of the secessionist movement. How about focusing on those for a while?
The "financial interests" and "wanting a war" are completely intertwined. Lincoln absolutely needed that war. To not have a war meant that the bulk of European trade would eventually skip New York and establish a beach head in the south. It meant that cheaper European goods would directly compete with Northern manufactured goods, but without the benefit of a protectionist trade policy.
Without a war, the economics of the North were in serious trouble, not to mention the possibility of states in the Midwest eventually being brought into the economic orbit of the Confederacy instead of continuing on with the established trade through New York and Chicago.
This would eventually result in their being brought into the political orbit as well, and states which in our timeline became part of the Union would have ended up being part of the confederacy; A defacto loss of territory and ability for the Union to expand Westward.
Also you haven't really addressed the "financial interests" involved in California secession. No, it's a cheap shot at Lincoln and then, eventually, on to the regurgitated stuff about the tariff.
You guys keep bringing up the Tariff. I keep pointing out the loss of European trade to New York which would have occurred had there been no war. I keep pointing out the economic competition that would have occurred had there been no war. I point out that the focus of trade on this continent would have shifted from New York down to Southern ports such as Charleston and New Orleans.
The people who had the most to lose from not having a war were the economic interests of the North East.