The South is being vilified in the civil war discussion

by Martin Kelly

Updated September 13, 2017 

The U.S. Civil War lasted from 1861 to 1865 and led to over 618,000 casualties. Its causes can be traced back to tensions that formed early in the nation's history. While the issue of slavery was at the heart of the division between North and South, a complex array of issues led to the South's secession and the "War Between the States."

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DIFFERENCES

When Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable.

This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. At the same time, the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor such as slaves. The southern economy became a one-crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery.

Though it was often supported throughout the social and economic classes, not every Southerner owned slaves. The population of the South was around 6 million in 1850 and only about 350,000 were slave owners. This included many of the wealthiest families, a number of whom owned large plantations.

In contrast, industry ruled the economy of the North and less emphasis was on agriculture, though even that was more diverse. Many northern industries were purchasing the South's raw cotton and turning it into finished goods.

The North saw a population boom as industrialization took over as well.

The birth rate was greater than in the South and it was a great time for immigration. It's said that seven of eight immigrants settled in the North and many of their traditional beliefs looked negatively on slavery.

This disparity between the two regions of the country set up a major difference in economic attitudes.

The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. The South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order. On both sides, economics influenced people's political views.

STATES VS. FEDERAL RIGHTS

Since the time of the American Revolution, two camps emerged when it came to the role of government. Some people argued for greater rights for the states and others argued that the federal government needed to have more control.

The first organized government in the U.S. after the Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weaknesses of the Articles caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the U.S. Constitution.

Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states 

to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts.

This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun—who resigned as Vice President to represent South Carolina in the Senate—fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and many of the southern states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards thoughts of secession.

SLAVE AND NON-SLAVE STATES

As America began to expand—first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War—the question arose of whether new states would be slave or free. An attempt was made to ensure that equal numbers of free and slave states were admitted to the Union, but over time this proved difficult.

The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820. This established a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase north of the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes, with the exception of Missouri. 

During the Mexican War, the debate began about what would happen with the new territories the U.S. expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. This was shot down to much debate.

The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states. It was designed to protect both northern and southern interests. When California was admitted as a free state, one of the provisions was the Fugitive Slave Act. This held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states. 

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was another issue that further increased tensions. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where pro-slavery Missourians, called "Border Ruffians," began to pour into the state in an attempt to force it toward slavery. 

Problems came to a head with a violent clash at Lawrence, Kansas, causing it to become known as "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the Senate when anti-slavery proponent Charles Sumner was beaten over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.

THE ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT

Increasingly, Northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. Many in the North came to view slavery as not just socially unjust, but morally wrong.

The abolitionists came with a variety of viewpoints. Those such William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass wanted immediate freedom for all slaves. A group that included Theodore Weld and Arthur Tappan advocated for emancipating slaves slowly.

Still others, including Abraham Lincoln, simply hoped to keep slavery from expanding.

A number of events helped fuel the cause for abolition in the 1850s. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and that popular novel opened many eyes to the reality of slavery. The Dred Scott Case brought the issue of a slave's rights, freedom, and citizenship to the Supreme Court.

Additionally, some abolitionists took a less peaceful route to fighting slavery. John Brown and his family fought on the anti-slavery side of "Bleeding Kansas." They were responsible for the Pottawatomie Massacre in which they killed five settlers who were pro-slavery.  Yet, Brown's best-known fight would be his last when the group attacked Harper's Ferry in 1859, a crime for which he would hang.

THE ELECTION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

The politics of the day were as stormy as the anti-slavery campaigns. All of the issues of the young nation were dividing the political parties and reshaping the established two-party system of Whigs and Democrats. 

The Democratic party was divided between factions in the North and South. At the same time, the conflicts surrounding Kansas and the Compromise of 1850 transformed the Whig party into the Republican party (established in 1854). In the North, this new party was seen as both anti-slavery and for the advancement of the American economy. This included the support of industry and encouraging homesteading while advancing educational opportunities. In the South, Republicans were seen as little more than divisive.

The presidential election of 1860 would be the deciding point for the Union. Abraham 

Lincoln represented the new Republican party and Stephen Douglas, the Northern Democrat, was seen as his biggest rival. The Southern Democrats put John C. Breckenridge on the ballot. John C. Bell represented the Constitutional Union Party, a group of conservative Whigs hoping to avoid secession.

The country's divisions were clear on election day. Lincoln won the North, Breckenridge the South, and Bell the border states. Douglas won only Missouri and a portion of New Jersey. It was enough for Lincoln to win the popular vote as well as 180 electoral votes.

Even though things were already near a boiling point after Lincoln was elected South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession" on December 24, 1860. They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. 

President Buchanan's administration did little to quell the tension or stop what would become known as "Secession Winter." Between election day and Lincoln's inauguration in March, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. 

In the process, the South took control of federal installations, including forts in the region which would give them a foundation for war. One of the most shocking events occurred when one-quarter of the nation's army surrendered in Texas under the command of General David E. Twigg. Not a single shot was fired in that exchange, but the stage was set for the bloodiest war in American history.

Happy 911 day!

Washington, D.C. – In response to the U.S. Senate’s unanimous vote to allow 9/11 victims’ families to sue Saudi Arabia in federal court, a report published in the London-based Al-Hayat daily, by Saudi legal expert Katib al-Shammari, claims that the U.S. masterminded the terror attacks as a means of creating a nebulous “enemy” in order garner public support for a global war on terror.

The report by al-Shammari, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), claims that long-standing American policy is “built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities,” which the U.S. has now turned toward the Saudi regime after being successfully employed against first the Taliban and al-Qaeda, then Saddam Hussein and his secular Baathist controlled Iraq.

Al-Shammari claims the recent U.S. threats to “expose” documents implicating the Saudi government are simply the continuation of a U.S. policy, which he refers to as “victory by means of archive.” He highlights that during the initial invasion of Iraq, under George H.W. Bush, Saddam Hussein was left alive and in power to be used as “a bargaining chip,” but upon deciding that he was “no longer an ace up their sleeve” Washington moved to topple his government and install a U.S.-backed ruling party.

The impetus behind the attacks, writes al-Shammari, was to create “an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes” and that would provide justification for any “dirty operation” in any nation.

“On September 11, the U.S. attained several victories at the same time, that [even] the hawks [who were at that time] in the White House could not have imagined. Some of them can be enumerated as follows:

1. The U.S. created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes, and also became the sole motivation for any dirty operation that American politicians and military figures desire to carry out in any country. [The] terrorism [label] was applied to Muslims, and specifically to Saudi Arabia.

2. Utilizing this incident [9/11], the U.S. launched a new age of global armament. Everyone wanted to acquire all kinds of weapons to defend themselves and at the same time battle the obscure enemy, terrorism – [even though] up to this very moment we do not know the essence of this terrorism of which the U.S. speaks, except [to say that] that it is Islamic…

3. The U.S. made the American people choose from two bad options: either live peacefully [but] remain exposed to the danger of death [by terrorism] at any moment, or starve in safety, because [the country’s budget will be spent on sending] the Marines even as far as Mars to defend you.”

The Saudi press has been in a frenzy since the unanimous Senate vote to allow for the House of Saud to be held liable in U.S. federal court for the 9/11 attacks, with the U.S. being accused of being in alliance with Iran – to press warnings that passage of the “Satanic” bill would “open the gates of hell,” as reported by Breitbart.

Al-Shammari makes extremely clear that he views the problem as the U.S. imperial machine itself, stating,“the nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy.”

“The nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy… [For example,] after a period during which it did not fight anyone [i.e. following World War II], the U.S. created a new kind of war – the Cold War… Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans’] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy! The U.S. saw a need for creating a new enemy – and planned, organized, and carried this out [i.e. blamed Muslims for terrorism]. This will never end until it [the U.S.] accomplishes the goals it has set for itself.”

While it seems fighting Islamic terrorism is great for increasing fear and state propaganda meant to elicit compliant civilian populations that passively accept loss of liberty for promises of greater security, the military-industrial complex needs a bigger enemy to justify their $600 billion dollar-a-year budgets, thus beginning the transition to labeling Russia/China as “aggressive Russia/China,” in an effort to begin to pivot away from one boogeyman to other, more profitable, ones.

Ethereum

Making the Entire World Trustless

POSTED BY: EVAN FAGGART  

We all know about the radical potential that Bitcoin has to make the world’s monetary system trustless. Bitcoin is already, in itself, completely trustless. There is no central authority that governs over the issuance of Bitcoin or the regulation of its supply. It is scarce; bitcoins cannot be created out of thin air, unlike the fiat currencies we are currently forced by law to use. Even transactions with Bitcoin are trustless. Once a payment is sent, it cannot be retrieved in any way. Therefore, it cannot be double spent. The transaction is confirmed by randomly chosen miners in a matter of minutes. There is no middle man, no bank or credit card company, that you have to put your faith in.

The topic of Bitcoin’s impact on the structure and operation of government has been widely discussed in the Bitcoin community. The main source of government power is its monopoly on money. With the sole authority to issue money create arbitrarily and infinitely, governments can pay for anything they want. They can wage endless wars over politics and natural resources, or they can fund massive welfare states to keep the citizens complacent and subservient. Bitcoin can change all that. By decentralizing the money supply, governments lose their monopoly control over it. Furthermore, the pseudonymous nature of Bitcoin makes it difficult to track, essentially rendering the government’s power of compulsory taxation moot. Consequently, governments would rely on voluntary donations to continue operations, meaning that they actually have to provide value to society. This change in the operation of governments would make them completely voluntary, which many argue would make them completely obsolete.

But Bitcoin cannot fully decentralize all aspects of society, however. Even if it can render violent governments impotent, Bitcoin does not do very much in terms of creating decentralized social structures outside of the realm of money. Here is where Ethereum will fill the gap.

Ethereum is not a crypto-currency, it is not even a monetary system. It isn’t a website, or any kind of social network. Ethereum is a platform. That is all Ethereum is. It is a platform based on smart contracts that allow for the funding and implementation of any type of project. The only limitations are those limits on the imaginations of the people using Ethereum. Simply put, Ethereum is a decentralized development platform that provides a trustless system of contracts and project implementation.

This distributed development platform operates on Ether, the built in unit of payment in the Ethereum network. The Ethers could, of course, end up being a currency. However, the potentialities of Ethereum are so grand that the Ether will likely serve as a means of digitally signing contracts and verifying escrow transactions that release other currencies, like Bitcoin, into the possession of the person who has completed the contracted job.

The main building block of Ethereum is the smart contract, which is a decentralized, trustless contract that exists within the Ethereum network. They are verified by using Ethers to confirm transactions and are limited only by what the developers using this platform can imagine, as was mentioned before. And the things that have so far been imagined are simply stunning! Here is a list of a few things that are possible within the Ethereum network that are listed on the platform’s official website:

• “Create a currency and issue shares.”
• “Contracts, law, and escrow.”
• “Financial instruments and derivatives.”
• “Decentralized organizations (DAOs).”
• “Decentralized voting.”
• “Decentralized data storage.”

These are only a few basic things that are listed on Ethereum’s website. The possibilities are literally endless. The concept is so simple yet elegant; a decentralized system of contracts that can be used to create anything that is desired. However, the development process is extremely complex. This project is the cutting edge of decentralization technology, far outweighing that of the various crypto-currencies, despite their constant growth and improvement.

It is essentially impossible to cover all of the things that can be done on Ethereum, because literally anything that is contract-based can be done. So let us imagine what the operation of a city would look like on the Ethereum network. Imagine that a neighborhood or city has a social contract outlined in a digital format on Ethereum. The contract would guarantee things that normal governments provide today, such as water and electricity. However, this social contract would be completely voluntary, there would be no forced taxation of violent enforcement of the rules, or laws—if they could be called laws under this system. An individual moving into the area would consent to this social contract by sending an Ether to an address that is owned by a company or agency responsible for supplying and maintaining the utility in question, whether it be water, power, sewer, telephone, etc. This transaction would set another transaction in motion, in which the person who has newly confirmed his or her consent to the social contract puts the necessary payment into an escrow service, which would of course operate on Ethereum. The company would then turn on the water, power, etc. in this person’s house.

Once the utility has been turned on, the person confirms the transaction by approving the release of his funds from the escrow account. The process repeats in the next payment cycle. If the utility company turns on the power but the resident does not release the money from escrow, the company simply turns the power off. There is no force involved, everyone is responsible for their actions. Failure to comply with the explicitly agreed upon contract results in a revocation of the services provided under the contract. This scenario seems like a much more peaceful method of conducting society indeed!

Ethereum is still in the development stages at this point, so there are no empirical facts currently available about the efficacy of this system. So all we can do is speculate and theorize, which is what we have been doing above. However, if Ethereum is successfully implemented, the situation described in the previous paragraph could indeed become a reality, along with an infinite set of other social and economic organizations. If it can be imagined, and built based on a system of decentralized contracts—which everything can be, theoretically—then it can be done on Ethereum.

The second part will discuss in potentials, Btc-Etherum and implementations, You can read the second part HERE