Really terrific writing Cynthia. Thank you for this!!! It is the clearest explanation I have ever read on what the civil war was actually about. Very important for today.
Many thanks for this revelation. It brought to mind a comment from Albert Schweitzer (I regret I cannot recall where or when I read it) to the effect that to attempt to teach Africa to fish was misguided. They could teach you how to fish. What Africa needed was access to cheap capital, European markets, and a means of building better harbours.
Upon reflection, I am shocked by your writing. Much that I have read without the merest inkling that alternatives were possible now call for a complete rethink.
If I may add a couple of immediate queries : Around 1650 rebellion within the UK was formented, possibly linked to the creation of the Bank of England. Was there a connection to Imperial policy?
Next, given the situation in Ireland, circa 1850, I do not see how the export of people could be avoided.
Still thinking about MAGA? "In 1981, The Hoover Institution short- circuited all of Reagan's campaign promises for lower taxes, decreased government spending, and the the goal of 'getting the government off of our backs'" The World Order Eustace Mullins.
Totally irrelevant to this paper. Maybe try reading next time. If you had, which should have been evident with just the title, this paper is in fact critical of the MAGA form of protectionism that is being lauded by Scott Bessent and co.
"South was strongly aligning with British free trade interests and was reducing itself to a raw materials exporter, namely cotton, despite this being utterly against their own welfare and interests to which there continues to be confusion over to this day."
Let me make a comment on the Southern political system. The politics in the South was based on aristocratic privilege and a lot on inherited money. In other words, money and social status was very important in Southern politics. The plantation system of slavery was conducive to creating a few very wealthy individuals at the expense of the many. The slave economy discouraged the development of manufacturing and wage labor. The aristocratic political system guaranteed the predominate political influence in the South would be the wealthy aristocracy and slave holders. Therefore, it was quite understandable that the political system in the South supported slavery and free trade, even though both ran against the interests of the majority of the population.
Really terrific writing Cynthia. Thank you for this!!! It is the clearest explanation I have ever read on what the civil war was actually about. Very important for today.
Knew the war was fought because of economics, but was not able to articulate it until now, since I have more of the facts. Thank you.
Read all the series on your tarriff series. Superb article, a great deep dive on what real is the purpose of tarriff.
Glad to hear you found the series useful Christopher! :)
Yes your work is very informative to all folks all around the world.
Many thanks for this revelation. It brought to mind a comment from Albert Schweitzer (I regret I cannot recall where or when I read it) to the effect that to attempt to teach Africa to fish was misguided. They could teach you how to fish. What Africa needed was access to cheap capital, European markets, and a means of building better harbours.
Upon reflection, I am shocked by your writing. Much that I have read without the merest inkling that alternatives were possible now call for a complete rethink.
If I may add a couple of immediate queries : Around 1650 rebellion within the UK was formented, possibly linked to the creation of the Bank of England. Was there a connection to Imperial policy?
Next, given the situation in Ireland, circa 1850, I do not see how the export of people could be avoided.
I look forward to your next paper.
Still thinking about MAGA? "In 1981, The Hoover Institution short- circuited all of Reagan's campaign promises for lower taxes, decreased government spending, and the the goal of 'getting the government off of our backs'" The World Order Eustace Mullins.
Totally irrelevant to this paper. Maybe try reading next time. If you had, which should have been evident with just the title, this paper is in fact critical of the MAGA form of protectionism that is being lauded by Scott Bessent and co.
"South was strongly aligning with British free trade interests and was reducing itself to a raw materials exporter, namely cotton, despite this being utterly against their own welfare and interests to which there continues to be confusion over to this day."
Let me make a comment on the Southern political system. The politics in the South was based on aristocratic privilege and a lot on inherited money. In other words, money and social status was very important in Southern politics. The plantation system of slavery was conducive to creating a few very wealthy individuals at the expense of the many. The slave economy discouraged the development of manufacturing and wage labor. The aristocratic political system guaranteed the predominate political influence in the South would be the wealthy aristocracy and slave holders. Therefore, it was quite understandable that the political system in the South supported slavery and free trade, even though both ran against the interests of the majority of the population.