28 days ago5 points(+0/-0/+5Score on mirror)1 child
To begin with, the south was settled by an entirely different type of people from England/Scotland than the north was. The south was settled by reactionary high church protestants, cavaliers and Covenanters, from the english civil war. The north was settled primarily by puritans. The rift that existed in England would carry over to the colonies. It reached one boiling point already when the catholic Maryland (*technically* southern as well, but that's an aside) was attacked by puritan settlers during the english Civil Wars.
The north, having been settled by the liberals of today, was the hotbed of merchants and the growth of finance capital. The south, given that it was settled by reactionaries, was against this. It always was. The north took many protectionist measures that while they went positively on the north, were hell on the non-liberal south.
Eventually, the tariffs that were bad for the south would prompt John C. Calhoun, South Carolina senator, to push a comically bad bill (it was designed this way on purpose) through to the government. It was designed to be bad because he believed that the lawmakers would act in good faith, would look at this, realize it was stupid, and would cut back on the already existing tariffs. They did not do this, and enacted the tariff of abominations anyways. This more or less proved that the merchant powerhouse of the north, backed by the government, did not give a fuck about anything that could disaffect the south.
The civil war was fought because the south owned almost all of the natural capital in the entire United States. The north owned almost all of the material capital in the United states. This goes back to how the colonies were set up in the first place by the english. The south got none of the return back on the natural capital they sent up north to be refined into goods, northern industry bought the raw material very cheap and took every red cent of the profit from the sold good. The south couldn't have even gotten rid of slavery because they couldn't afford to build any industry, because the north took all of the money and very little of that cash flowed back to the south. The south could have survived without the north, given that at the end of the day, natural capital is arguably more important than material capital for sustenance, and the south could have theoretically created their own material capital. The north could not survive without southern goods. This is why the south wanted to leave and the north needed them to stay. Because northern industry would have collapsed. The civil war was effectively a giant strike.
Also, the federal government proved during reconstruction (disaster as it was for different reasons) that they could have stimulated industrial growth in the south the entire time. They just didn't care about the institution of slavery for as long as they benefitted from it. They decided to care because of the prospect of the south's raw capital absolutely dwarfing the north's during the debacle about what to do with new states. They continued to benefit from slavery in union-faithful states (Delaware had slaves until 1901. Forget juneteenth) and also Liberia (its own can of worms).
And on the topic of reconstruction, this would cause the south to become a major hotbed for political radicalism (revolutionary socialism and borderline 3rd positionism) until the FDR psyop in the 40s and 50s.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
The south started saying no to the north after the tariff of abominations. Its most violent "no" was fort Sumter. While part of the union, the south did not really have the capability to create its own material capital because it didn't have enough money (even the richest planter was a complete bum compared to the most broke factory owner in the north). However, the threat of the spread of agricultural slave states threatened the paradigm because of the enormous amount of natural capital this would inevitably create. It would have given the south so much raw material that they could have chosen another more favorable client for their goods, or force the north to give them more money for the product. Effectively economic dominance by the pure amount of raw natural resources held (this is done by China today with rare earth minerals)
The south essentially wanted to pursue its own destiny because they were tired of the north using it as a whipping boy to get cheap goods from and generally being a leech on the wealth of the country (hmmm i wonder if this pattern has ever repeated itself in other countries). More agricultural states would have allowed this, which the union did not allow, so the south took matters into its own hands.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
The north, having been settled by the liberals of today, was the hotbed of merchants and the growth of finance capital. The south, given that it was settled by reactionaries, was against this. It always was. The north took many protectionist measures that while they went positively on the north, were hell on the non-liberal south.
Eventually, the tariffs that were bad for the south would prompt John C. Calhoun, South Carolina senator, to push a comically bad bill (it was designed this way on purpose) through to the government. It was designed to be bad because he believed that the lawmakers would act in good faith, would look at this, realize it was stupid, and would cut back on the already existing tariffs. They did not do this, and enacted the tariff of abominations anyways. This more or less proved that the merchant powerhouse of the north, backed by the government, did not give a fuck about anything that could disaffect the south.
The civil war was fought because the south owned almost all of the natural capital in the entire United States. The north owned almost all of the material capital in the United states. This goes back to how the colonies were set up in the first place by the english. The south got none of the return back on the natural capital they sent up north to be refined into goods, northern industry bought the raw material very cheap and took every red cent of the profit from the sold good. The south couldn't have even gotten rid of slavery because they couldn't afford to build any industry, because the north took all of the money and very little of that cash flowed back to the south. The south could have survived without the north, given that at the end of the day, natural capital is arguably more important than material capital for sustenance, and the south could have theoretically created their own material capital. The north could not survive without southern goods. This is why the south wanted to leave and the north needed them to stay. Because northern industry would have collapsed. The civil war was effectively a giant strike.
Also, the federal government proved during reconstruction (disaster as it was for different reasons) that they could have stimulated industrial growth in the south the entire time. They just didn't care about the institution of slavery for as long as they benefitted from it. They decided to care because of the prospect of the south's raw capital absolutely dwarfing the north's during the debacle about what to do with new states. They continued to benefit from slavery in union-faithful states (Delaware had slaves until 1901. Forget juneteenth) and also Liberia (its own can of worms).
And on the topic of reconstruction, this would cause the south to become a major hotbed for political radicalism (revolutionary socialism and borderline 3rd positionism) until the FDR psyop in the 40s and 50s.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
The south essentially wanted to pursue its own destiny because they were tired of the north using it as a whipping boy to get cheap goods from and generally being a leech on the wealth of the country (hmmm i wonder if this pattern has ever repeated itself in other countries). More agricultural states would have allowed this, which the union did not allow, so the south took matters into its own hands.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed