It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by seagull
If the civil war hadn't been fought in the 1860's it would have eventually been fought anyway. It ultimately came down to States Rights versus the power of the Federal gov't. Guess who won.
Originally posted by forestlady
I think Fighting Kentucian hit it on the nail. It was economical, not about slavery. The South became unwilling to pay the ridiculous tariffs that the North demanded. History is written by the victors, thus the North decided to make the war about slavery, not their own stupidity of demanding that the South pay such enormous tariffs.
-Forestlady
Originally posted by seridium
King George ?
didnt he fund the american cvil war?
posted by Fighting Kentuckian: “I know that by 1860 the South was paying over 80% of the entire federal budget from import tariff duties, and the majority of that money went to benefit the [more populated] Northern states. When Lincoln was elected he wanted to increase tariffs the south would have to pay. It was getting too costly to remain in the Union and the rest is history. [Edited by Don W]
users.cyberone.com.au...
17. ABE LINCOLN and the CIVIL WAR
Unfortunately, even Jackson failed to grasp the entire picture and its
root cause. Although Jackson had killed the privately-owned central bank,
the most insidious weapon of the Money Changers - fractional reserve
banking - remained in use by the numerous state-chartered banks. For
example, Ln Massachusetts by 1862 the state banks had loaned out eight
times as much as they had gold and silver on deposit. One state
bank had issued $50,000 backed by a total of $86.48. This fueled economic
instability in the years before the Civil War, particularly as no reserve
ratios were mandated for most of the state banks. Still, the central
bankers were out and therefore coordinated monetary manipulation on a
national scale was rendered impossible. As a result, America generally
thrived as it expanded westward.
During this time, the principal Money Changers struggled to regain their
lost centralized power and money monopoly, but to no avail. Finally they
reverted to the old central banker's formula - finance a war, to create
debt and dependency
posted by WithoutEqual: Anyone who thinks it was fought to free the slaves is a victim of revisionist history . . white people wouldn't even let them use the same restroom, or eat at the same lunch counter for another 100 years? [Edited by Don W]
Originally posted by forestlady
I think Fighting Kentucian hit it on the nail. It was economical, not about slavery. The South became unwilling to pay the ridiculous tariffs that the North demanded. History is written by the victors, thus the North decided to make the war about slavery, not their own stupidity of demanding that the South pay such enormous tariffs.
-Forestlady
Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Anyone who thinks it was fought to free the slaves is ignorant and a victim of revisionist history. I mean come on folks, white people we're willing to die to free slaves, yet wouldn't even let them use the same restroom, or eat at the same lunch counter for another 100 years?!?
Just like all wars it comes down to $$$. Industrialization of the South, started taking money out of yankee pockets, and good old Lincoln and the rest of Washington couldn't have that.