Sic Semper GOP

[kandrathe]

England had a near insatiable appetite for cotton, and in turn had an almost unlimited supply of manufactured products. The industrializing North wanted both the cotton and the markets. That led to a dispute over tariffs between the North and the South. To the leaders (but not to the general population) this dispute was as much a reason for secession as was slavery. The South actually expected England to join them in the war. Given that England was strongly abolitionist, that would have been a foolish expectation if the war had been just about slavery. As it was, it was a near thing, with principle barely beating out profits.

I was just reading up on Britain's need for attempting a monopoly on the cotton industry, in order to also secure their domination of the wool industry. This extended throughout their empire, to India, Australia, and New Zealand. One might theorize then that issues with British East India Company, and Egypt and India as a major suppliers (esp. during the Civil War), and then choosing to buy cheaper (slave picked), and higher quality cotton from North America after the war ended resulted in some of the angst that led to the revolt in India, and British presence in the Egypt and middle east.

Thank you Great Britain!

---

"Allowed"? Right. That statement is so wrong in so many ways. Clay Jenkinson (who portrays historic characters, most notably T. Jefferson) has pointed out that, with a gun, you can force a man to chapel but you can't make him a Lutheran -- at most, you can make him a hypocrite.

I'm not trying to imply it can be forced out of existence. Prejudice is perpetuated by ignorance... Ignorance is profligate, and I think it is getting worse not better.