Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (33309)	3/25/1999 5:32:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Maybe a little bit about American colonialism -- For most of the 19th century the US was absorbed with its "manifest destiny" to expand to the Pacific. Originally cramped within the Appalachians by British decree with the end of the Seven Years (French and Indian War), Americans infiltrated the West, especially through the Cumberland Gap and settled the old Northwest. The rivers flowing west required an outlet to the sea for crops and timber, and the acquisition of secure port rights at New Orleans was a major objective of Jefferson's policy. Most are familiar with Napoleon's desire to reduce his indefensible colonial exposure, and the Louisiana Purchase which opened up the Northwest for American exploration and occupation. The long conflict with Britain over the old Northwest contributed to the war of 1812 (which left treaty borders largely unchanged, but confirmed US ownership of the Northwest and its position on the Western Great Lakes. Before 1860, the major US expansion problem was the political organization of the West. Gradually -- very slowly -- interests -- political and ethical in nature - arose opposing extension of slavery and the Missouri Compromise (1820) was critical in limiting slavery's expansion. (Missouri Compromise was ruled unconstitutional in Dred Scott decision which reopened the agitation for free soil and self-determination as to slavery in the late 1850's. The Lincoln-Douglas debates defined the issues and brought Lincoln to prominence nationally and weakened Douglas who was pro-slavery and a major slave owner himself. The Civil War was one of the great flukes of history. The South had one every legal and constitutional battle. Even Lincoln was willing to guarantee slavery in the slave states. The original 13th Amendment passed in 1860 but never fully approved by the States made slavery immutable against Constitutional Amendment. Had even a few of the Southern and Border states been willing to accept the Compromise the United States would have been locked into a nation half-slave and half-free, which Lincoln had said would never stand. I do not think it is too much to say that the possibility of human freedom hinged on Southern politicians overreaching and demanding the dissolution of the Union. It is also not too much to claim that Lincoln's commitment to save the Union at any cost was essential to the survival of the hope of human freedom. It is worth noting that the undemocratic electoral college system elected Lincoln who did not receive a majority of the individual votes. I am sure that the election of either of the alternative candidates would have caused the destruction of the Union, or, even worse, adoption of the proposed compromise of 1860 preserving slavery immutably. The destruction of the slave power in the South was essential to human freedom. One can hardly imagine that Russia would have ended serfdom or Brazil slavery without the American Civil War. French occupation of Mexico and imposition of Maximilian of Hapsburg as Emperor might well have succeeded had not the Union triumphed. Had the French resisted U.S. demands and tried to remain in Mexico, the US might well have marched in and liberated or conquered Mexico itself. A defeated weakened France might have been swept away by Prussia earlier, etc. Lots of fruitless speculation is fun, but the world would have been dramatically different with the U.S. shattered into pieces. Hard to believe that the South could have stuck together, I would expect further fragmentation over the issue of the slave trade and Southern expansion into Cuba and Santo Domingo. Even during the Civil War, Americans and new immigrants migrated into the West, and obliterated many Indians. The transcontinental railroad opened many areas to commerce and settlement. The flood of European immigrants who settled much of the West was expelled by the agricultural competition. Northern European farmers -- Swedes, Norwegians, Germans, Slavs from Austria-Hungary, Russians, filled the Great Plains introducing new crops which were exported back to Europe and built industrial cities -- shipping grain and packing meat for export. America was filling up, but never had enough people to press upon its resources and force diminishing returns to labor. The increase is labor productivity continued inexorably but never made it possible for the US to adopt free trade (until the WTO just a couple years ago). Protectionism allowed American firms to survive and develop, even though their products were more costly and inferior to Britain. Britain seized world trade in machinery and cloth, but scarcely penetrated American markets. Politicians (such as Chamberlain) were never able to build the empire common market they sought, and Germany and the United States threatened British economic leadership before World War I. Nevertheless, the US was still a debtor nation, requiring foreign capital (largely from Britain) to develop. I've heard the Queen of England was a few years ago, the largest recipient of cotton subsidies from the US government because of the Crown's ownership of delta lands. Britain's selling off of assets to finance World War I destroyed much of its wealth and the US became a net lender. World War I reflected political guarantees (of Belgian neutrality) resulting from its balance-of-power politics required to protect its trade from France and Germany. Britain should probably have sat World War I out, but could not because of its naval arrangements with France in which Britain guaranteed France's Atlantic coasts against German attack. (we slip unavoidably into British colonialism). (A Full House, three's over bullets isn't bad!)