whats the point of war?

What you believe is a matter of indifference to me.

Is there any truth to this?

BANKS, SLAVERY, AND FINANCIAL FLUCTUATIONS

Increasingly, slavery surpassed banking as the central issue of American politics. In the South, banks had indeed supported slavery, making substantial loans to plantation owners both on the value of land and on the value of slaves. But it is a myth that banks ignored industry or manufacturing. Quite the contrary, despite remarkable returns on investment (close to 20 percent), southerners themselves stayed wedded to the cotton culture partially out of familiarity and partially out of the benefits of a power structure that elevated even the poorest whites above slaves. Ironically, the rural nature of the South accelerated efficient banking structures, such as branching, past the unit bank systems of the more heavily populated northern cities. It was the superior branching structure of the South that largely insulated it from the effects of the panic of 1857.

Numerous theories have attributed the panic of 1857 to the fall of grain prices following the Crimean War and the failure of the New York branch of the Ohio Life and Trust Company. In 1990, however, the panic was seen as originating in the Dred Scott case, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court destabilized seventy years of American territorial policy by ruling that neither Congress nor the people of a territory could prohibit slavery. This ruling immediately caused the bonds of east-west running railroads to plummet (though not the bonds of north-south running lines) and thus rapidly eroded the asset structure of numerous large banks. The South was less affected by the ruling because its superior branching system provided a better means of information transmission, thus serving as a circuit breaker for runs. But northern unit banks, lacking as reliable a source of transmission for financial information—not to mention flexibility of assets—suffered disproportionately higher losses.

Contemporaries, however, misread the lessons of the panic, especially in the South where they rightly could have crowed about their banking structure. Instead, advocates of the cotton culture claimed that their plantation system had spared them and that cotton was king. Likewise, in the North, the focus was turned on the tariff, not banking policy. The Civil War intervened before either side accurately analyzed the problems of the panic.
THE CIVIL WAR: BANKING AND FINANCIAL TRANSFORMATION

Secession plunged markets, North and South, into upheaval. After the firing on Fort Sumter, the Confederate States of America immediately confiscated all the gold in Southern banks' vaults, thus destabilizing them. By embargoing cotton, the Confederacy further weakened the position of Southern banks. Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) delivered the coup with the Emancipation Proclamation, which by freeing the slaves further undercut the asset base of virtually all Southern banks. Had the war ended on 2 January 1863, the Southern banking system still could not have recovered due to the damage that both the Confederate and Union governments had done to the system.

So then, i take you agree with Foofie that the North started a war to impoverish the southern banking system? How did they do that? Did agents provocateurs incite state troops of Florida, Alabama and South Carolina to seize Federal installations and fire upon Federal troops and an unarmed merchant ship? Did nefarious agents of the northern banking system convince John Floyd to illegally ship arms to southern states in 1860? Do you think about the meaning of what people post?

Upon what basis do you allege that the North started that war?

Yes!



I am not aware that I have alleged any such thing!

I sucked at history, " As a young person I had other things on my mind but as I have grown older I have acquired a joy in learning such subjects.
I am a new student to history so I really can not add much to what you all write but I can question what you write, "I have always been good at that!

You're obviously not aware of it, which is why it is useful to think about what you're writing before you post.

This is what Foofie wrote which lead me to ask if he just makes **** up:



So, the immediate question would be whether or not the North started, or "baited" the war in order to impoverish the southerrn banking system (which is what is implied by "ultimately allowed the North to impoverish a Southern banking system"). Other questions arise as well. Such as, by "North," does he mean every man, woman and child who lived in the North? Does he mean a nefarious cabal of northern financial interests?

If you're so good at asking questions (i see no evidence of that), i would think that questions such as that would be obvious.

I see nothing wrong with questions like that, I can only guess that many people had different reasons for going to war and I can see where some people might find a profit in getting rid of the southern banks.
Is this the only motive for the war? No!




Are you being serious? Is this a question that you honestly have to ask yourself?
I guess that there may be someone in this world that would include every man, woman and child who lived in the North but I have not met them!

A video with a different point of view!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqABxtgO6Ys

Well, you're ignoring several things. You need to learn to understand the implications of what people write. Foofie's idiotic claim suggests that the North started or otherwise instigated the war. The historical evidence is clear that this is not the case, unless someone can substantiate some bizarre conspiracy theory to the effect that northern interests manipulated Floyd to ship arms, and manipulated state troops of Alabama and Florida to attack and seize Federal installations, and manipulated state troops of South Carolina to seize Federal installations and fire on an unarmed merchant ship. Proving goofy **** like that is a tall order. So as an alleged "motive," it sucks, because it depends on this shadowy, bizarre alleged conspiracy.

I asked Foofie what southern banking system because he wrote "a" southern banking system, not "the" southern banking system. Curiouser and couriouser, Alice. Does he allege that there was more than one southern banking system?

I don't have to ask myself anything about who in the North Foofie alleges were responsible--that's his bullshit, not mine. So the question of exactly to whom he refers is pertinent, the more so as he inferentially alleges some sort of conspiracy.

You do make good points in what you share and I myself have never been into conspiracy theories but as I get older I have come to realize that people in power and out of power will do all kinds of strange things behind the scenes.

I know that if I was born into a family that gave me a few thousand acres and a few hundred slaves I would probably do all sorts of crazy things to maintain that status if it were to be threatened!

If I was a psychopathic person that profited from the banks of the north and I seen that the kids in the south were playing with the toys I like playing with I would do some things that you would call conspiracy theories because I would be good at what I do!

A short video with cute raccoons and people speaking about the type of teachings that lead us into war with each other!

Raccoon Adorability, Nazi Propaganda & False Gods

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DPP6w0N5GQ&NR=1&feature=fvwp

I agree. Ideologues often, in my opinion, try to hide that fact. In fact, ideologues might even dissimulate, so others believe that the "closet ideologue" is really offering a very non-committed opinion (of the facts). The dirty little secret might be that most people have a degree of preference as to how history should be viewed. So, academic credentials, and scholarly work, might not reflect an unbiased opinion.

Understanding history, in my opinion, is a minefield of propaganda.

Quite true. In my opinion of your historical analyses, I see many facts, likely very correct; however, the import you give to a fact allows you to frame the historical occurrence as you do. The power always goes to the person that can "frame" an event. So, regardless of the in-depth, fact-based posts you offer the reader, I cannot get myself to accept everything you offer, since there is that gnawing feeling that you might see things from a specific vantage point, and therefore, might not have empathized with the contrarion position of some historical character. In my opinion, your facts posted lead you to a personal catechism of history that reflects your world view. But, to be fair, I do believe you are aware of all contrary facts, that could lead one to another conclusion.

In my opinion, you have the ability to be an "alpha" poster, and you do have your following here, for your fact filled posts. Have a nice July 4th, if you celebrate it.

Amen Foofie you are nobody's fool, just look at all the sacred books that so many people believe to be the absolute word of God and the origins of this planet.

Do you think that it could be possible for an history expert to be wrong about history given the psychological and conformational biases that we all seem to have?

The actual incidents are academic. My belief is that the North knew that the overly emotional nature of the Southern aristocracy would at some point believe that secession was the only way to ensure the continuation of their way of life. In effect, I believe, the abolitionist mentality of the North "baited" the South to secede. The time and place was academic.

Obviously, my using the word North was meant to refer to those Union people that agreed by a "wink" what would be the outcome of a steadfast abolitionist mindset. In the mist of time the actual individuals would not be known, since history often erases such "footprints" on purpose.

Your question above is like asking who was against hiring the Irish in the 19th century, or who was against allowing Jews to join universities, or country clubs, in the early 20th century. The answer is it was a "gentleman's agreement."

As i've already pointed out Foofie, the goofy, nonsensical things you believe are of no interest to me.

Ocpd? A little bit of the right stuff? or maybe ASPD? Probably not!

http://www.ocdonline.com/articlephillipson6.php

You need to talk to Foofie, clown. He's the one who is insisting on his goofy conspiracy theory despite a complete lack of evidence.

If you have such problems I am cool with that but don't think you are the only one because you are not!

Even though you may be correct you could at least point out to him the logic you are using in a tactful way but like always I may have this all wrong!