# A Brief History of The United States. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 9, 2010, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521 "2010-04-09T13:52:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/41 "2010-04-10T15:23:17Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Given that the South started the war, it’s either ironically or something way less charitable. They just wanted to secede which was not specifically denied them by the Constitution. Lincoln interpreted it otherwise. As I’ve pointed out earlier, if the South had been allowed to peacefully secede,the North would have been marginalized and the South would have emerged as a world and continental power. The Northern textile industry bidding against England for cotton? I don’t think so, Jose. Sure, they fired first but they were just trying to remove a fort in their sovereign territory which the Yankees insisted on holding. From the Confederate pov, they’d already been invaded. > [@](#): > > The amazingly persistent blather about the Santa Clara case is one of the greatest cases of ignorant simplification in the history of the Internet blather, blather, blather. Apparently you missed my post #22 > [@](#): > > The question of corporate personhood began to arise post-bellum after the USG was firmly in the hands of Northern banks and industrial interests and in 1889 [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=129&invol=26](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=129&invol=26) SCOTUS finally ruled that corporations are people. ( The 1886 Santa Clara decision did not actually address the question of corporate personhood but it certainly paved the way for it.) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/42 "2010-04-10T15:31:45Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > After the revolution which basically got the British East India Company (corporation) off their backs. . . The British East India Company was, as its name implies, primarily concerned wth the East Indies (and eventually, India), and didn’t do much of anything in the western hemisphere. While the actions of the British East India Company are significant in Indian history, the only thing that’s relevant to the American revolution at all is the Tea Act, which gave the company the right to sell tea anywhere in the Empire, rather than solely to brokers in London. That upset some colonial merchants (who were making money on black market tea), and led to the Boston Tea Party. But that’s pretty much it. The British East India Company was hardly on the “backs” of colonial Americans. I doubt many would have even heard of it. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/43 "2010-04-10T15:37:49Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > . As I’ve pointed out earlier, if the South had been allowed to peacefully secede,the North would have been marginalized and the South would have emerged as a world and continental power. The Northern textile industry bidding against England for cotton? I don’t think so, Jose. That’s why Pakistan (fourth largest cotton producer in the world, after China, India, and the US!), with its vast cotton wealth, is considered a superpower today. ---
**Author:** ![tbook](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/df705f/32.png) [@tbook](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tbook)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/44 "2010-04-10T15:47:01Z")
adhay: Quote: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by tbook > adhay:I saw this on a sign being waived about by a guy on the Berkely Campus in the 1990’s. I searched but couldn’t find anything to reinforce my recollection, so you know, I might be misremembering. But I’m sure the same guy was also predicting the end of the world. adhay’s reply: > [@](#): > > Just another wanker, probably all worked up about the S&Ls, Iran-Contra and Star Wars. The end of the world as we know it will most likely show up some time after oil peaks. > > Relax. Plenty of time. Thanks for clearing that up. Now would you like to clear up your own OP? ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/45 "2010-04-10T15:53:44Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > The British East India Company was, as its name implies, primarily concerned wth the East Indies (and eventually, India), and didn’t do much of anything in the western hemisphere. While the actions of the British East India Company are significant in Indian history, the only thing that’s relevant to the American revolution at all is the Tea Act, which gave the company the right to sell tea anywhere in the Empire, rather than solely to brokers in London. That upset some colonial merchants (who were making money on black market tea), and led to the Boston Tea Party. But that’s pretty much it. The British East India Company was hardly on the “backs” of colonial Americans. I doubt many would have even heard of it. As far as you go, yes. But aside from feeding the handy rant, taxation without representation, the Tea Act could be considered a foot in the door, the tip of an iceberg. The British East India Company had it’s own army and a great and corrupting influence in Parliament. You might see the Tea Act as a beachhead being established by BEAC (or something like it) on the shores of the American oligarchy. IOW, a slippery slope. Then there was the question, why pay taxes when you can collect them? ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/46 "2010-04-10T15:56:30Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > They just wanted to secede which was not specifically denied them by the Constitution. Lincoln interpreted it otherwise. As I’ve pointed out earlier, if the South had been allowed to peacefully secede,the North would have been marginalized and the South would have emerged as a world and continental power. The Northern textile industry bidding against England for cotton? I don’t think so, Jose. Er, what? There is no way the South could have become an economic superpower. They were almost entirely dependent on imports for everything except cotton. It was the North’s push for higher tariffs on imports (because the North wanted the South to buy American made goods) that caused a large portion of the friction between the two sides. It was Northern economic dominance that was the pretext for succession, not slavery. The South had very little in the way of interstate railroads. If they had been successful in establishing a country they would have been serverly handicapped in trying to start up any sort of interstate commerce. The North by comparison was heavily linked via railway. The North also produced almost all of the US’s railroad equipment, so unless the South is going to start buying Northern goods immediately they aren’t going to be able to even begin fixing that problem. Except that even if the North was willing to sell to the South they probably aren’t going to be able to afford it. By 1850 the North controlled over 70% of the money in the US as well as all the major banks at the time. It had more than twice the South’s population (and that’s counting the slaves) and 90% of all skilled labor was done in the North. The South had barely entered the Industrial Age. The Civil War didn’t cause the North to become the industrial hub of the US, it already was. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/47 "2010-04-10T16:01:22Z")
> [@tbook](#): > > adhay: … Thanks for clearing that up. But of course. > [@](#): > > Now would you like to clear up your own OP? I have made an effort to respond to every point raised here and in the process done a good deal of clarifying of the OP. If, after reading my posts, some points remain unclear to you, ask away. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/48 "2010-04-10T16:21:47Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > Er, what? There is no way the South could have become an economic superpower. They were almost entirely dependent on imports for everything except cotton. It was the North’s push for higher tariffs on imports (because the North wanted the South to buy American made goods) that caused a large portion of the friction between the two sides. It was Northern economic dominance that was the pretext for succession, not slavery… This and the rest of what you say about the lack of Southern industry/infrastructure and economic dependence is also true. But I choose to differ about the South’s future as a super power. But (I like this quote) > [@](#): > > was a document designed to protect Southern Capital from Northern Capital and, until the War of Northern Aggression, it did a pretty good job of protecting states rights. Lincoln, ever the lawyer, contended that those rights did not extend to walking off with most of the nation’s agriculture, 3/4 of its coastline along with control of the Ohio/Mississippi, the Caribbean and Mexico. Or that they might attract a few border states to join the fun. If that happened, the USG would have ended up back in Philadelphia. IOW, with these advantages AND the established sovereignty to deal as an equal with North, free of military threat, the North would have ended up helping the South. I can see Northern industrialists outsourcing manufacturing to Southern free labor factories and building the RR’s necessary to get the goods to market. ---
**Author:** ![tbook](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/df705f/32.png) [@tbook](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tbook)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/49 "2010-04-10T16:30:36Z")
> [@](#): > > If, after reading my posts, some points remain unclear to you, ask away. OK, what is source for the line: > [@](#): > > the war on the middle-class and unions commenced in earnest with Reagan’s supply-side economics, corporate deregulation and the destruction of the Air Traffic Controllers Union. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/50 "2010-04-10T16:43:39Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > This and the rest of what you say about the lack of Southern industry/infrastructure and economic dependence is also true. But I choose to differ about the South’s future as a super power. Via magic? We agree that they had no industry, no infrastructure to allow interstate commerce, and no capital. They had one good to trade. Yeah, it was a popular one, but they needed _everything_. There was no way they could hope to maintain any sort of trade balance. > [@](#): > > But (I like this quote)IOW, with these advantages AND the established sovereignty to deal as an equal with North, free of military threat, the North would have ended up helping the South. I can see Northern industrialists outsourcing manufacturing to Southern free labor factories and building the RR’s necessary to get the goods to market. The South could not afford anything. Even selling all their cotton they couldn’t afford anything. Reconstruction may have been messy and corrupt, but it was the only thing that dragged the South kicking and screaming into the 19th century. Government subsidies were required to build railroads, schools, and factories. The South had nothing and no money. They had 11,000 miles of railroad at the start of the Civil War. By 1890 they had 29,000 miles built by Northern businesses with government subsidies. There is no way the Confederate government could have paid for that. A fourth of Southern whites were illiterate (higher in some states). They were simply not equipped to even begin establishing any sort of non-plantation economy. They had no skilled labor to build even if they wanted to and could afford to pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/51 "2010-04-10T16:49:34Z")
> [@tbook](#): > > OK, what is source for the line: Just a WAG based on my own biased reading of modern US history. Basically, Reagan just made official the historic govt policy of serving American corporate interests at taxpayer expense. Those guys who live on unearned income, of course, were taxed less. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/52 "2010-04-10T16:52:14Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > Via magic? We agree that they had no industry, no infrastructure to allow interstate commerce, and no capital. They had one good to trade. Yeah, it was a popular one, but they needed _everything_. There was no way they could hope to maintain any sort of trade balance… Please refer to post #48. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/53 "2010-04-10T17:00:04Z")
Did you just tell me to read the post I quoted and disagreed with? :dubious: It doesn’t magically get better the second time. Just like the South’s economy. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/54 "2010-04-10T17:21:21Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > Did you just tell me to read the post I quoted and disagreed with? :dubious: :smack: > [@](#): > > It doesn’t magically get better the second time. Just like the South’s economy. As I have stated, SC was land and slave based and that without slaves, it was non-existent. It is my contention that had the South been peacefully granted sovereignty, their great geographical and labor advantages would have put them on serious negotiating ground with Northern banks and industry. You may disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/55 "2010-04-10T17:54:22Z")
Geographical advantage? While it would have been more expensive to not use the rivers, the North was not dependent on them. They had railroads. It’s not like the South’s succession left the North landlocked and without port cities. Manufactured goods in the US were already leaving through those Northern port cities. They’re not being forced to adapt much. The North wasn’t going to suffer for not having direct access to the Gulf of Mexico. And the South did not have control of the Ohio River. Remember that Kentucky and West Virginia did not join the Confederacy. So really it was just the loss of part of the Mississippi River. You’re also forgeting about the Great Lakes. If your scenario happened, the St. Lawrence Seaway would most likely have been built much earlier allowing full scale shipping through all of the North. The first locks were already in place by 1862. And what labor advantage? Even counting the slaves as part of the South’s population they weren’t even half as large as the North. They were uneducated and unskilled. What were they going to produce besides cotton that was of use to the North? It’s not going to be food. Illinois and Indiana farmers actually benefited from the civil war. And don’t forget that cotton isn’t the only way to make cloth. The wool industry was located in the North, if the Confederacy had lasted you can bet that wool would become the predominate fabric in the North. They had no factories, so if you’re hoping to take advantage of slave labor there you’re out of luck. They had no infrastructure to take advantage of what they produced even if they had factories. They had no money to even try and lure people to come and build for them or teach them how to do it. I’d be amazed if the Confederacy could have sustained itself beyond the first generation to honest. Certainly not as an economic power even if it had. The best they could hope for was a plantation based agrarian society that would have rapidly been passed over by the rest of Western Civilization. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/56 "2010-04-10T18:41:25Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > Geographical advantage? … I think you underestimate the strategic value of controlling the Ohio/Mississippi, 3/4 of our coastline along with easy access to the Caribbean and Mexico. > [@](#): > > I’d be amazed if the Confederacy could have sustained itself beyond the first generation to honest. Certainly not as an economic power even if it had. The best they could hope for was a plantation based agrarian society that would have rapidly been passed over by the rest of Western Civilization. At the time of the Civil War, the South was a third world place. Had the South been allowed to secede, NC would have had the same interest in developing the South as it’s been shown to do in every undeveloped country that has suffered our “intervention” against indigenous development around the world. But if the South had been allowed to secede, it would have presented to NC an undeveloped nation unlike any other. Globally recognized, with an educated wealthy class, well versed in USG machinations, a formidable army and great popular support, it could have demanded much favorable developmental terms than, say, Cuba. I will not go into further detail but they didn’t call Birmingham the Pittsburgh of the South for nothing. If that’s not enough, so be it. I need a rest. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/57 "2010-04-10T19:18:02Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > As far as you go, yes. > > But aside from feeding the handy rant, taxation without representation, the Tea Act could be considered a foot in the door, the tip of an iceberg. The British East India Company had it’s own army and a great and corrupting influence in Parliament. You might see the Tea Act as a beachhead being established by BEAC (or something like it) on the shores of the American oligarchy. IOW, a slippery slope. Then there was the question, why pay taxes when you can collect them? No. It couldn’t be considered a foot in the door. By the time of the passage of the Tea Act, the British East India Company was illiquid, badly managed, and near bankruptcy. That was the whole point of the Tea Act. It was an unsuccessful attempt to bail the company out by opening up markets to it. Later that year, Parliament passed the East India Company Act of 1773 (over the objections of the British East India Company, so so much for its great and corrupting influence in Parliament), which increased regulation over the Company, reaffirmed that all the land owned by the East India Company was really owned by the crown and just leased to the Company, set up the governor generalship of India, who, while a member of the Company, his appointment and decisions had to be confirmed by a government board, and set up a judicial system in India, taking away the Company’s judicial power. The American Revolution had nothing at all to do with the British East India company. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/58 "2010-04-10T19:20:48Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > I will not go into further detail but they didn’t call Birmingham the Pittsburgh of the South for nothing. Birmingham is called the Pittsburgh of the South because it developed a successful steel industry AFTER the Civil War, thanks in large part to that Northern Capital you’re talking about. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/59 "2010-04-10T19:29:40Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > … The American Revolution had nothing at all to do with the British East India company. I’ll concede the point. Can we say that BEIC practices merely made the FF suspicious of large corporations leading initially to tight regulation of corporations in this country? > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Birmingham is called the Pittsburgh of the South because it developed a successful steel industry AFTER the Civil War, thanks in large part to that Northern Capital you’re talking about. Which, as I have contended, would have been made available to the seceded South WITHOUT the Civil War. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521/60 "2010-04-10T20:02:53Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > I think you underestimate the strategic value of controlling the Ohio/Mississippi, 3/4 of our coastline along with easy access to the Caribbean and Mexico. I don’t know why you insist that the Confederacy would control the Ohio River. It does not touch even one of the Confederate States. Seriously. Go look on a map. It was entirely within Union territory. Second, you’ll need to explain what the Confederate ports could have provided to the Union that could not be achieved through their own ports. Or why it was a necessity that the Union have easy access to the Caribbean and Mexico. > [@](#): > > At the time of the Civil War, the South was a third world place. Had the South been allowed to secede, NC would have had the same interest in developing the South as it’s been shown to do in every undeveloped country that has suffered our “intervention” against indigenous development around the world. The North would have taken all it’s resources, killed a third of it’s population and then leave? The North would not have had an interest in susidizing the develpment of a country that had just broken away from them. Where do you get that idea? Why would they want to? The Confederacy had _nothing_ besides cotton to bargain with. The natural resources of the North were still going strong in 1861. The money in rebuilding the South after the war came from the US Government, not from gaining access to the natural resources of the South. You’re making the same case that Bush did for Iraq, that the money gained from their natural resources would be sufficient to pay for all the work that has to be done. That did not happen during Reconstruction, there’s no reason to think it would have worked had there not been a war. > [@](#): > > But if the South had been allowed to secede, it would have presented to NC an undeveloped nation unlike any other. Globally recognized, with an educated wealthy class, well versed in USG machinations, a formidable army and great popular support, it could have demanded much favorable developmental terms than, say, Cuba. I will not go into further detail but they didn’t call Birmingham the Pittsburgh of the South for nothing. Globally recognised because the North would have washed it’s hands of them, yes. That’s not a point in favor of the North then paying to modernize the South. Yes, they had an educated upper class. They also had an average illteracy rate among whites of 25% (90% for blacks). The upper class is also generating their wealth through land ownership and cotton. What are they going to be paying with? Land grants so the Union ends up owning them? It can’t be cotton since they need to sell that just to maintain the plantation lifestyle. It’s not going to be able to fund an industrial revolution as well. Formidable army compared to who? I think we can safely say that the North would win if they fought and the South would suffer serious collateral damage such as the loss of a major city. Like Atlanta. The South was not in a position to bargain with anyone. If the North didn’t end up owning them outright within the decade they’d be a de facto British colony. The Confederacy simply did not have the funds to subsidize any improvements without outside help. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states/535521.md?page=4)