Quote:
Originally Posted by soopaman2
Americas civil war had many victims (a million plus dead or wounded on both sides), not intended. But the result made for a free nation.
|
Which was, as far as you mean slavery, a side-effect, and probably not really the intention, some letter quotes from Lincoln leave little doubt that the slaves was not that much a point of interest for him. The real intention was that Northern states wanted to socialize the debts they had accumulat, and demanded the southern states to pay for them. Which the South obviously did not like that much, and why should they - at that time it was no one-national union with a centralised one-governmet-fits-all. Why should the one who managed economy better, pay for the debts resulting from the other who wasted more than he could afford? there is a reason why the Southern economy and finance system was annihilated so mercilessly by the North. It was to destroy any possible basis for autonomy and to make sure the South could never afford to live independant from the North again.
Sounds familiar to you? You are right - history is repeating itself today. In EUpistan.
I have become extremely hesitent to see the freeing of slaves as a driving motive of the American civil war. It was about money, destroying local sovereignity and centralised power to strengthen control over the creation of money. Once that was secured, the age of real monumental spending frenzies began, slow at first, but with constantly growing pace. It lasts until today.
Slaves - who cares for slaves... pfffft... Not back then. Not today. We just have globalised the slave quarters, to not have them in our sights thta much.