November 7, 2012 at 6:28 am #14951ewers.anthonyMember
A year or so ago I watched a documentary about “American History,” and for the life of me I can’t remember what the title was but it was a very strong progressive take. In it it say’s that during the Revolution when the the Continental Congress was printing its own money that the British had printed up counterfeit continentals in order to destroy the value of the real currency, and therefore this was the real cause for the over-inflation of the continentals. Also, they stated that during the Civil War that the British had stationed troops along the border of Canada, and I want to say in Mexico but I’m not sure if they said Mexico or not. The reason for the troop stationing, they say, was to invaded the U.S. and the C.S. if the secession movement had succeeded. So my question is: Is any of this true? Is there any supporting evidence for this?November 7, 2012 at 9:24 pm #14952woodsParticipant
Benjamin Franklin, who was in a position to know, did not blame British counterfeiting for the fall in the value of the Continental. He blamed American politicians:
“I received your valuable letter by the Marquis de Lafayette, and another by Mr. Bradford. I can only write a few words in answer to the latter, the former not being at hand. The depreciation of our money must, as you observe, greatly affect salary men, widows, and orphans. Methinks this evil deserves the attention of the several legislatures, and ought, if possible, to be remedied by some equitable law, particularly adapted to their circumstances. I took all the pains I could in Congress to prevent the depreciation, by proposing first, that the bills should bear interest; this was rejected, and they were struck as you see them. Secondly, after the first emission, I proposed that we should stop, strike no more, but borrow on interest those we had issued. This was not then approved of, and more bills were issued. When, from the too great quantity, they began to depreciate, we agreed to borrow on interest; and I proposed, that, in order to fix the value of the principal, the interest should be promised in hard dollars. This was objected to as impracticable; but I still continue of opinion, that, by sending out cargoes to purchase it, we might have brought in money sufficient for that purpose, as we brought in powder, &,c. &,c.; and that, though the attempt must have been attended with a disadvantage, the loss would have been a less mischief than any measure attending the discredit of the bills, which threatens to take out of our hands the great instrument of our defence.”November 8, 2012 at 6:03 pm #14953gutzmankParticipant
Why would it have made any sense for the British to try to invade the Union if the Confederacy had won its independence? The Union had a gigantic army — far larger than anything the British could have amassed in Canada. Given half an excuse, the Union likely would have “liberated” the Canadians from monarchical government, as was tried during the Revolution (for real) and War of 1812 (as a bargaining chip — purportedly).
If the Confederacy had won its independence, how would the British have invaded the South from Canada?
I’ve never heard of any of this. I think there’s a reason for that.November 9, 2012 at 5:26 am #14954ewers.anthonyMember
Okay, I just wanted to make sure because I too had never heard any of that stuff either. I was finally able to dig it up, it’s called “1932, A True History of The United States” and it’s produced by “LaRouchePAC.” Perhaps y’all know who this group is, but my take is they are obviously statist who love the “American system,” and it seems that they are putting out some misleading info.
EDIT: I just found out more info, it appears that this PAC was founded by Lyndon LaRouche. He appears to be some kind of psychotic Marxist who has been pushing conspiracy theories, with no factual evidence, for decades. Beware people.November 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm #14955tsmatteoMember
I’m only 3 lectures in. But I can already see how the differences between North and South were not as simple as I learned in school.
Seems as though we have quite the division today in our country.
I am curious to see the new ‘Lincoln’ movie about to come out.
I suspect the message will be that Goverment facilitating (forcing) ‘unity’ is what ‘saved’ the country then. And that the same will be needed today.
I can’t wait to get further in this course to see how that maistream thinking is completely inaccurate.
I bet there will be fundamental lessons to take from the real history leading up to the Civil War that have been completely lost by mainsteram education.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.