Basically, the argument is that the North's support of emancipation was a smokescreen of setting an example of a government waging war against it's own citizens that don't wish to support them.
They have a point, especially since the American civil war WASN'T required. Why? Because the British set the example before where they simply reimbursed the owners for the slaves, freed them when they were under their ownership and then outlawed it. Then had a naval squadron to stop future slaves being brought in.
It's kind of hard to argue that it was at all required if buying off the slave owners wasn't just an option but an example that worked.
The civil war wasn't started to free the slaves to begin with, it was to retain sovereignty.
Correct, and the holy Emancipation Proclamation was a mere war maneuver. It didn't "free the slaves" either, and in fact gave the North and any state (or even county) who converted to the North carve outs to continue to own slaves for a while.
The North was pissed the South was doing well, and wanted "their cut" of the profits.
More specifically, the Jew bankers took issue with the fact they couldn’t manipulate the market since cotton and other supplies kept the South’s economy very resistant to change vs the north
I know that had the South separated at the time, it would have been something like the world's third largest economy, which was the primary reason the North refused to allow them to secede (since they paid the majority of all federal taxes). But were Jewish bankers really so entrenched and influential even back then that they would have been able to influence most key figures into waging a civil war? Jews are overrepresented in most influential fields today because of generations of people engaging in rampant nepotism, but back in the 18th century, it just seems like they would have had less time to set that up.
Basically, the argument is that the North's support of emancipation was a smokescreen of setting an example of a government waging war against it's own citizens that don't wish to support them.
They have a point, especially since the American civil war WASN'T required. Why? Because the British set the example before where they simply reimbursed the owners for the slaves, freed them when they were under their ownership and then outlawed it. Then had a naval squadron to stop future slaves being brought in.
It's kind of hard to argue that it was at all required if buying off the slave owners wasn't just an option but an example that worked.
The civil war wasn't started to free the slaves to begin with, it was to retain sovereignty.
Correct, and the holy Emancipation Proclamation was a mere war maneuver. It didn't "free the slaves" either, and in fact gave the North and any state (or even county) who converted to the North carve outs to continue to own slaves for a while.
The North was pissed the South was doing well, and wanted "their cut" of the profits.
More specifically, the Jew bankers took issue with the fact they couldn’t manipulate the market since cotton and other supplies kept the South’s economy very resistant to change vs the north
I know that had the South separated at the time, it would have been something like the world's third largest economy, which was the primary reason the North refused to allow them to secede (since they paid the majority of all federal taxes). But were Jewish bankers really so entrenched and influential even back then that they would have been able to influence most key figures into waging a civil war? Jews are overrepresented in most influential fields today because of generations of people engaging in rampant nepotism, but back in the 18th century, it just seems like they would have had less time to set that up.
retain and expand POWER