Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
coldcomfortfarmMember
In the South under Siege book the author claims that Britain was too worried about impending war with France and too tied economically to industrialists in the North to come to the aid of the South who had such diminished prospects for winning.
coldcomfortfarmMemberAnyone here read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-South-under-siege-1830-2000/dp/1568373945/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1374123310&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=south+under+siegeI’m reading it now and I must say it’s a revelation. If they had told us this in school it would be a miracle if anyone felt that Lincoln was anything but dishonorable
The themes are these, Northern industrialists wanted to have the South foot the bill to build railroads, and infrastructure, and when SC seceded the North was put on notice that their cash cow was hopping the fence. I was not aware that the high tariffs put the burden of the costs of government 85 percent on the south, for example. And that the population had shifted giving the North full power to have their way with the legislation. And that Lincoln invaded Maryland and refused to allow the legislature to meet to vote on secession, and threatened their leaders, strictly as a move to stop any more states from joining the Confederacy. Fascinating stuff.
And what about the movie available at Amazon for rent or purchase, “What Really Happened at Fort Sumter”? Have any of you watched this? It’s about how the Ft. Sumter saga unfolded. It’s eye opening to me.
coldcomfortfarmMemberThe term economic mobility is misleading. Does it mean that in a “mobile” economy people will rise and fall with no individual effort? Or does it take something? Let’s face it, individual effort and skill will vary, and its much easier to fall down a mountain than to climb it.
coldcomfortfarmMemberExcellent! Thank you very kindly for those links as well as for your wonderful course.
-
AuthorPosts