« Federal Reserve History | Main | Bad News Troubles Bulls »

Comments

AF

Check it out, Greenspan may not have earned his PhD from NYU after all:
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB120675340444773623.html?mod=b_hpp_9_0002_b_this_weeks_magazine_home_right

Big surprise!

Elaine Meinel Supkis

What? He got it from the University of Phoenix? HAHAHA. Or maybe he got it from the Weimar School of Economics?

Dutch

The main fissure between the two parties was the obvious one: slavery.
Lets set this one right. Slavery was a political football at the time. Wasnt their a Tarrif that actually instigated this war. Was it not about cotten?

CK

@Dutch:
They were both issues. Slavery was a visceral issue to many citizens/voters. The tariff issue was not so visceral to voters but was to exporters. To paint with a very broad brush, the south was basically an agricultural exporting section ( king cotton ) and needed low tariffs. The North was beginning to industrialize and thought it needed high tariffs to protect the infant industries from low cost imports from England. High tariffs would have bankrupted the south's agrigultural base.
( And put a lot of slaves into the same status as idle machinery, only slaves still have to be fed, and housed unless one wants to contemplate less decent alternatives.)
The election of Lincoln, a railroad lobbyist lawyer strongly backed by the high tariff northern banks, railroads and baby industries, as well as the anti-slavery northern voters led to the rift.
Now look at a map.
Notice the very long and very porous land borders that would have demarcated two separate nations. The Northern interests knew that allowing the South to go peacefully would have rendered any high tariff moot. The tariffed goods would have flowed to Confederate ports and then wended their way North through the various backwoods trails and roads. ( Think Moonshining on a HUGE scale ). In effect, if the North had led the south go its own way, the southern ports would have boomed as industrial imports destined for northern use would have moved to friendly low tariff south and then slid northwards. Not only that but the south would have faced an increasing demand for its cotton and would have led to increased westward expansion of the southern agricultural interests.
There was and is nothing in the constitution to prevent any state or group of states from leaving the voluntary Federal compact. So Lincoln was elected, South Carolina seceeded, other states seceeded, Lincoln was inaugerated, things became tenser and tenser, Lincoln forced the issue by sending Northern Military units ( a naval resupply group and warships ) into foreign territory ( The Confederacy, specifically Fort Sumpter) in an act of aggression against a new republic. The Confederacy defended itself as any sovereign nation would.
The War of Northern Aggression was the fourth war fought over money by the US. ( 5th if one counts the revolution against England ).
Slavery only became a hot button issue during the war, when the Lincoln Administration thought it was losing. Then the issue became the inhumanity of slavery not the needs of the northern banks and railroads and industries to have high protective tariffs. There was slavery in the north before and during the war, the emancipation proclamation only applied to slaves in the areas of the continent NOT under the control of the Northern armies.
Slaves in Maryland, NY, PA, Delaware, NJ, Mass, etc. were not set free by this proclamation.

Elaine Meinel Supkis

Wrong, CK , on one very very important item:

The Supreme Court ruled that Southern Slave States could go NORTH and even if the NORTHERN states had laws freeing slaves who left southern states, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT had to LET THE SLAVERS COME NORTH TO RETRIEVE THE SLAVES!!!

This was a HUGE instigation for the war! This made it illegal to harbor fleeing slaves EVEN IN THE NORTH. The fury this caused in the north was huge!

Even so, nothing happened, they voted for the new Republican party and when Lincoln came into office, IMMEDIATELY, the slave states ATTACKED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Fort Sumpter.

Not one law was passed concerning slavery when this happened. The tariffs issue was a side issue. It didn't lead to shooting. But the ANTICIPATION of laws protecting RUN AWAY SLAVES was the cause of the southern premptive strike.

Reimund from Berlin

Hello Elaine,

I found s.th. interesting about the devaluation of money from 1846, taken (I can not scan it so I type it out) from page 127 from the book "Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?" by Richard Maybury:

Sign posted in Trade Store at Sutter's Fort State Historic Park

Notice

Discounting of Currency

1. All Paper Currency drawn upon State Banks and State Offices of Comptrollers will be discounted 45% Per Centum on Transactions. There will be no Exceptions.

2A. Mexican and British Bank Drafts will be discounted 27% Per Centum on Transaction.

2B. All Bank Drafts on Pacific Coast Merchants, Banks, Lending Houses, and Ships Pursuers will be discounted 33% Per Centum on all Transactions.

3. All Bank Drafts and Letters of Credit or Exchange, on European Merchants, Banks, Lending Houses or Governmental Agencies doing Business on this Coast and rdeemable in Silver or Gold will be discounted at 15% or exchanged at a 20 % Discount.

4. All Coinage will be Exchanged or Accepted at Face Value minus 5% on Volume of Business Transactions. Banking of Funds on Sandwich Island Accounts Payable - 5% of Volume.

Drafts and Warrants upon this establishment will be Accepted at Face Value for Trades - or - at 10% Discount for Exchange of Coin or Drafts of Letters of Credit.

By Order of
John A. Sutter
Proprieter

January 14, 1846 George N. Loker
Chief Clerk

Elaine Meinel Supkis

HAHAHA. Good catch.

The sales clerks had to have PhDs in economics to write out sales tickets.


Basically, they haggled over prices. This long list was a warning about what was being haggled over. So people wouldn't whine. And it was to stop them from overpricing themselves. Of course, the sales price was ultimately whatever the buyer and seller agreed to. There being little competition in the Wilderness.

Guns were always useful as negotiation tools.

My family lived in the Wild West. We liked it there, frankly. 'If you can see your neighbor's chimney smoke, they are too close.' is a family saying.

Dutch

And put a lot of slaves into the same status as idle machinery, only slaves still have to be fed, and housed unless one wants to contemplate less decent alternatives.)

Exactly, now the overhead of taking care of slaves disappears.

Dont get me wrong, I liked Lincoln, but it really didnt matter who won the war. The monied interest profited no matter who was the victor, the failure was in the north of not getting all of Lincolns reforms pushed through. Now we all are slaves! HA!

The Supreme Court ruled that Southern Slave States could go NORTH and even if the NORTHERN states had laws freeing slaves who left southern states, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT had to LET THE SLAVERS COME NORTH TO RETRIEVE THE SLAVES!!!

This was a HUGE instigation for the war! This made it illegal to harbor fleeing slaves EVEN IN THE NORTH. The fury this caused in the north was huge!

Yes, but in that time it would be the same as harboring inmates today! They were property just as prisoners are property today, just look at our private prisons and the amount of prisioners!

JSmith

The Civil War: agrarian smallholders vs. capital. Capital won, but the smallholders didn't necessarily give up. If you see a Stars-n-Bars flag somewhere, look at where it is. It won't be on a boardroom wall, it'll be on a garage wall, or the front of a semi, or on some sole proprietor's pickup truck.

CK

@Elaine:
Sorry for the delay in responding, have been doing house repairs.
Anyhow, the Court did not say that southern States could invade the north. The court held that the Northern states could not unilaterally void the constitution. The courts held that slaves were still property and could be retaken by their owners or their owners agents. Individual states had strong opinions about slavery, some northern states tried to subvert property laws ( ain't it always so ) with legal chicanery. The supremes of the time said not so fast.
Also you have the time line incorrect on the Fort Sumpter incident.
South Carolina had asked the northern troops there to vacate as the south was no longer part of the union.
The fort commander refused.
The Confederacy blockaded Fort sumpter
Lincoln sent a military re-supply mission, which violated Confederate territorial boundries, and was an act of aggression. ( just as sending the fleet into Iranian territorial waters would be an act of aggression ).
The Confederacy responded to the aggression and thus an unnecessary war was on.
The fugitive slave acts of 1850 were not universally loved, but were a minor thing in the overall issue compared to the importance of money and tariffs.
It's funny: the first slaves in America were Scots and Irish ( debt slaves ).
Slavery has been the norm in the world for 10,000 years of history.
There were slaves in the North all through the civil war, they were not set free during the war.
In the movie the Magnificent 7 Eli Wallach ( the villain of sorts ) has a magnificent line that sums up religion, economics and war:
If God had not wanted them to be sheared, he would not have made them sheep.

Elaine Meinel Supkis

Naziism could last as long. Hitler wanted a 1,000 year slave empire, you know.

I have a cure for anyone supporting slavery: I need cheap labor here on my farm. I will come by and collect you at gun point since you know how to do house repairs. You can be my cabana boy, too. heh. For free.

Remember: NO ONE was enslaved except at GUN POINT.

CK

@Elaine:
Naziism was not the topic, the topic was tariffs and how they led to the civil war.
Recognition of reality is not the same as support. I recognize all sorts of realities that I do not support. Slavery is one of those realities.
Collecting me at gunpoint would not be necessary nor adviseable. I do house repairs, build and maintain computers, have built custom furniture, and buy and sell old stuff.
As for the cabana boy offer, in some of your previous comments re Elliot Spitzer, one could have taken away the impression that you are not unfamiliar with the demi monde. Not unfamiliar with interpersonal transactions of a short-term rental nature. There was a time when I gave demonstrations of certain kinds of interpersonal techniques of an enhanced nature.
It doesn't take a gun to enslave someone, the easiest to enslave are those with an enhanced sense of honour. In debt is enslaved. The second easiest to enslave are the academics, the useful idiots, the nattering classes. In ignorance is enslaved. And you know as well as I that there are many many many who will willingly barter their freedom for a chance to suck at the teat of government. In democracy is enslaved.
To be honest, I believe that the only two things a person owns are his body and his mind. If someone wishes to rent or sell his body to another, that is his right. ( usually we call it paid labour except when we call it prostitution)
If someone wishes to put his mind into the hands of another that too is his right. ( Usually we call it paid labour, except when we call it war crimes and political heresy )
When it is done with all the state supported and mandated curlicews and geegaws we call it marriage and honour it,
we call it "the draft" and claim to honour the draftee, we call it service to God and are supposed to subsidize those that believe in a bearded guy in the sky fantasy, while they sell us entry into fantasy Island in the sky, is an elevated and moral thing.
Anyhow, the WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION was an economic war first and foremost. Tariffs caused it; fugitive slave laws, slavery, and all the rest of the fantasy book history that kids have to learn today has minimal effect.
John Brown had minimal effect. His body is still moldering in the grave.
Now back to that cabana man offer....
If by "for free" you mean that you are not offering funny paper printed in DC... no biggie.
If by "for free" you mean that there are no non-financial perks and bennies, we might need to indulge in a long negotiating session... intense even ... but it will have to wait for a few days, I am still doing house repairs and just a few hours ago I found a local supply of cake flour that was not yet inflated in price; a ( modified ) Black Forest Cake is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon.

Dutch

I want some cake...

Elaine Meinel Supkis

Hey, maybe we can all go over to CK's place and munch down! Can't wait!

CK

The cake baking begins in a few hours.
Now some words of explanation:
This is my first attempt at baking a cake.
This is my second attempt at baking anything. ( First attempt was a mostly successful Lime Meringue pie )
You would all be most welcome to come over and guinea pig ( beta test if you prefer a more current euphemism ) my initial cake endeavour.
The cake will be made with real cake flour,
real cherry brandy from Germany, real cherries, heavy cream, buttermilk, tons of sour cherries. I plan to serve it with Lusianne coffee and single malt scotch ( Lagavulin 18 year old ) in the smoking room of Casa CK. Formal attire is requested of all beta testers --- or full nudity; either is considered elegant enough for good food.

Elaine Meinel Supkis

Ck: if you wish, we can have a cyber cake party. Email me the photos.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad