The Civil War

[Thorne]

I would like you to explain that, or are you talking about WW11....let me see that was 67 years ago.

No, I was referring more to Europe as it existed from roughly the fall of the Roman Empire up through WWI. The individual nations of Europe existed in a seemingly continuous state of war with one or more other nations of Europe for a very long time.

I would also like to point out that the Euro Countries might at this moment be arguing with each other, but they will always be a United Europe.

Yes, they do appear to be cooperating now. And it's only taken them roughly 200 years to catch up with the US.

Even if the European Union breaks up that is only the Federal part of a United Europe. Meaning just like your Federal Government and the Individual States, if the Federal Government colapses you will still have the United States.

Without a centralized government, the United States ceases to exist. Oh, some states will remain united, forming coalitions or confederations. Other states (Texas for one, in all probability) would likely go off on their own, establishing their own national governments and policies. Some border states might even decide to join with Canada or Mexico, for security reasons if nothing else.

I believe i would be correct in saying that the Federal Government is the only thing holding the individual states together now. Dito with Europe. You are arguing in circles.

You say that even if the Federal Government collapses the states would hold together, then say that the only thing holding them together is the Federal Government? Talk about arguing in circles!

I will say that one major benefit that the US has over Europe is having a single (up to now) language. Take a person from almost anywhere in the US and plop him down almost anywhere else and he will be able to understand, and be understood by, those around him. On the other hand, perhaps one of the benefits of having so many different languages, like Europe, is that you tend to learn about other people when you have to learn their language. When you aren't busy either killing them or trying to keep them from killing you.

[IAN 2411]

No, I was referring more to Europe as it existed from roughly the fall of the Roman Empire up through WWI. The individual nations of Europe existed in a seemingly continuous state of war with one or more other nations of Europe for a very long time.

Yes I agree but most of that was due to greed and also in fighting between Kings, Queens and in-laws. I don’t think there is a lot of chance of that taking place now.

Without a centralized government, the United States ceases to exist. Oh, some states will remain united, forming coalitions or confederations. Other states (Texas for one, in all probability) would likely go off on their own, establishing their own national governments and policies. Some border states might even decide to join with Canada or Mexico, for security reasons if nothing else.

I would think most probably that most of the states would form their own government, but they would stay a United States of America. Most people worldwide know that there is safety in numbers and the USA whether you like to say it or not are frightened of a United Europe because it poses a threat to your security if too big. I expect there are those in Washington that are pleased to see what is taking place in the near breaking up of Euro countries now.

You say that even if the Federal Government collapses the states would hold together, then say that the only thing holding them together is the Federal Government? Talk about arguing in circles!

Yes that was a bit of a home goal, but I never meant it the way I wrote it, and here this morning i am not sure what i did mean. lol


Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

Yes I agree but most of that was due to greed and also in fighting between Kings, Queens and in-laws. I don’t think there is a lot of chance of that taking place now.

Yeah? Look at what happened when Yugoslavia broke up. I realize it was a somewhat forced union of small countries/peoples, but it didn't take them long at all to go back to the old ways of genocide and war.

I would think most probably that most of the states would form their own government, but they would stay a United States of America.

I'm sure there would be a group that would stay together, though I couldn't begin to guess how many states would be in that group. And they would still call themselves the United States. But they wouldn't be as large or as powerful as a nation of 50 states has become. And they would likely be very preoccupied by economic conflicts with other states/nations on the continent.

the USA whether you like to say it or not are frightened of a United Europe because it poses a threat to your security if too big. I expect there are those in Washington that are pleased to see what is taking place in the near breaking up of Euro countries now.

I suspect those in Washington are more concerned about the economic impact of a united Europe than the security impact.

Yes that was a bit of a home goal,

What a great phrase! I don't think I've ever heard it, but I instantly understood the meaning behind it.

but I never meant it the way I wrote it, and here this morning i am not sure what i did mean. lol

Ah, yes, the cold light of morning casting glaring shadows on the semi-inebriated maundering of the night. Been there, done that.

[denuseri]

Well as fun as it to speculate about what ifs: to think that the War wouldn't have happened and everyone would have gotten along peacable is obviously not something that had a chance, both sides depsite any attempts to the otherwise by some individuals who were few and far between did indeed go to war over and becuase of the main issue that divided them.

Additonally... I think the decendents of those who were slaves (not to mention their ancestors who were in fact enslaved whose effort to have their freedom eventually did pay off) would naturally be appalled that people are still around today who would suggest that the people who were enslaving them should have been allowed to blithely continue to do so.

[Thorne]

Well as fun as it to speculate about what ifs: to think that the War wouldn't have happened and everyone would have gotten along peacable is obviously not something that had a chance, both sides depsite any attempts to the otherwise by some individuals who were few and far between did indeed go to war over and becuase of the main issue that divided them.

Agreed. It does seem that the war was inevitable. But the "what ifs" are a lot of fun. One of my "guilty pleasures" is reading Alternate History, basically, "what ifs". Harry Turtledove did a very good series of books on "what if" the Confederacy won the war and remained an independent nation. Pure speculation, but a lot of fun!

Additonally... I think the decendents of those who were slaves (not to mention their ancestors who were in fact enslaved whose effort to have their freedom eventually did pay off) would naturally be appalled that people are still around today who would suggest that the people who were enslaving them should have been allowed to blithely continue to do so.

Well, being of Slavic descent, my ancestors were once slaves, too. At least as far as the Romans were concerned. And yes, I too am appalled that anyone can still believe that enslaving other people is a good thing. But we have to be careful of judging people in the past based on our modern interpretations of morality. Enslaving people now is obviously wrong, though there are still some who do so. But in the past, in many cultures, slavery was not only acceptable but an economic necessity. Who are we to judge those cultures? Just remember, in another thousand years people will be looking back at us and wondering just what made us so damned silly!

[thir]

I disagree. As harsh as it was to force them to rejoin the Union, anything else could have resulted in a highly fragmented country, with individual states breaking away anytime some state legislature decided it didn't like what was happening in Washington. You then wind up with another Europe, many small nation-states constantly at war with one another.

Well, first I simply believe that you should not force areas together against what the people want. People have a right to choose for themselves.

Secondly, I really do not think that you can compare Europe and USA that way. The European countries were created over a long, long time and ended up really different, while USA was colonized by white people over a relatively short time.

What that would mean in the long run is anybody's guess, but surely the history would be markedly different from that of Europe.

[thir]

On the other hand, perhaps one of the benefits of having so many different languages, like Europe, is that you tend to learn about other people when you have to learn their language. When you aren't busy either killing them or trying to keep them from killing you.

This is not always the case, as is shown with whites and indians in the early days.
But the killing is the same.

[thir]

Yeah? Look at what happened when Yugoslavia broke up. I realize it was a somewhat forced union of small countries/peoples, but it didn't take them long at all to go back to the old ways of genocide and war.

The point that I see here is that you should not force people to become a country if they do not want to.

[thir]

[
Additonally... I think the decendents of those who were slaves (not to mention their ancestors who were in fact enslaved whose effort to have their freedom eventually did pay off) would naturally be appalled that people are still around today who would suggest that the people who were enslaving them should have been allowed to blithely continue to do so.[/COLOR][/B]

I don' tthink they would have been. Can you imagine independant southern states anno 2011 with slaves?

[thir]

Agreed. It does seem that the war was inevitable. But the "what ifs" are a lot of fun. One of my "guilty pleasures" is reading Alternate History, basically, "what ifs". Harry Turtledove did a very good series of books on "what if" the Confederacy won the war and remained an independent nation. Pure speculation, but a lot of fun!

Yes, indeed! :-))

But in the past, in many cultures, slavery was not only acceptable but an economic necessity.

Which is just another way to say that someone was chosen for pay for someone else's ideas and greed.

'Economic neccessity' is just a manipulative expression. Pretty much like 'you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs'. But it is always somebody else's egss, and all it means is 'I am going to destroy you for me benefit.'

[denuseri]

I don' tthink they would have been. Can you imagine independant southern states anno 2011 with slaves?

Considering that in the south in most areas former slaves were litterally still kept in a state of official peonage right up into the 1960's and 70's; coupled with the fact that it wasn't until the Federal Government yet again was forced to deploy troops not once but several times to enforce the civil rights act when it finally made it through congress...which until then the south had for the most part only payed lip service too other laws concerning the equal treatment of blacks, (including amendments to the consitution garenteeing equal staus in the law) all the while continueing not only a tradition of mistreating blacks for their color alone but actually keeping entire poulations of former slaves in a state of fear and terror along with local law enforcment's good ole boy endorsment and encouragment, sometimes even direct support.

Things like water treatments, lynchings, cross burnings, rape, beatings, shootings, capturing of blacks to be tortured with a rowdy night of doing the"Nigga laundry" (a practice where a black man was sumerged in near boiling water and scrubbed with hard bristle brushes until his skin litterally came off) etc etc

(Some towns... one near here near where I live today even had signs up warning blacks that if they were cuaght in the city limits after dark they would be shot on sight)

One city in the south even had postcards made in the 1930's displaying blacks being strung up and hung to rot for days on end in the publoc square in front of their couthouse: touting that "this is what we do to "nigers" when we get our hands on them in our town".

Another town has fields of unmarked graves containing hundreds of remains of blacks who were kidnapped in the night and tortured to death in similar fashion, (last estimate was over 600)...that the south is up in arms about so much that they are refusing to allow any further digging in the area by the archeology students who found them only in the past decade.


So: Yes I can imagine all too well the horror that would have continued perhaps right on up to this day if allowed to go on and it were not impeded by outside force of arms.

[Thorne]

Well, first I simply believe that you should not force areas together against what the people want. People have a right to choose for themselves.

To a point, but if you are a lawful nation, don't you (as the government) have the right to maintain the boundaries of that nation? For the good of all the people, of course. Those who don't like it are welcome to leave, generally.

Secondly, I really do not think that you can compare Europe and USA that way. The European countries were created over a long, long time and ended up really different, while USA was colonized by white people over a relatively short time.

Yes, but most of the Americans, especially during the times running up to the civil war, were transplanted Europeans who brought many of the cultural, and political, biases over with them.

This is not always the case, as is shown with whites and indians in the early days.
But the killing is the same.

Whites and Indians were not competing on a relatively equal technological level, nor on an equal racial level. In Europe it was difficult to distinguish between natives of different countries simply by their appearances, especially in border areas. And generally all of the European nations were at comparable levels of technology.

The point that I see here is that you should not force people to become a country if they do not want to.

The problem isn't that they were forced to become a country, but that once that central government collapsed each tiny region reverted to centuries old hatreds and prejudices. And with few exceptions the individual nations which returned were far worse off than when they had been "united" under a central government.

[MMI]

The aftermath of the English Civil War (which took place between 1642-51 and encompassed England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, as well as the English colonies in America) can still be seen today. Ask an Irishman his opinion of Oliver Cromwell ... then step back several paces for your own safety! It was the English Civil War that took most of the Royal Powers away from the King, although they remained vested in the Crown, and all monarchs thereafter ruled subject to the will of Parliament*. Protestants from places like Massachusetts and Connecticut returned to England to fight against the King and strongly supported Cromwell's republic after the King was executed. Virginia, on the other hand, was noted for its strong support of the Royalist cause: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/...n_American_War, where it is noted that the same split between colonies occurred again between the successor states in the American Civil War.

If some of the scars from that conflict are yet to heal, it is obvious to me that there will still be lingering sores in the US following their own more recent civil war and the long and painful progress towards the liberation of blacks afterwards; I am told that there are still significant organisations in America, mostly in the South, which still espouse white supremacy and continue to fly the Confederate flag, as if the defunct Confederacy represented the true America, rather than the present government.

Time is a slow healer.



*... making it impossible for King George III to have been the tyrant he is made out to be, especially as he believed he was defending the British constitution against usurpers.

[MMI]

For those who are interested, BBC Radio 3 is running a series of programmes (available on the internet for 7 days each) about the American Civil War http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01063zt.

I also came across the following news items which are relevant: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13040351, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13022129 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13022128.

(Was that a Freudian slip: no difference between the Confederate flag hanging on her wall and President Obama hanging on her wall ... back to the lynchings huh?)

[thir]

So: Yes I can imagine all too well the horror that would have continued perhaps right on up to this day if allowed to go on and it were not impeded by outside force of arms.[/QUOTE]

Actually, as far as I know it was not impeded much by outside forces, and, as you say, the problems continue today in varous forms in spite of a united America.

I am obviously not speaking for slavery (real slavery), but I am in doubt about how much difference it would have made. There is no country today, as far as I know, that have open slavery these day, however else things have happened with their history.

[thir]

To a point, but if you are a lawful nation, don't you (as the government) have the right to maintain the boundaries of that nation? For the good of all the people, of course. Those who don't like it are welcome to leave, generally.

The bounderies of a nation is not always to the good of all the people, as is shown many places around the world even today.
In historical terms, some powers would overpower other nations, and make it their law that they should accept it, like it or not.

So the question is: whose law?

Is law more important than freedom?

Yes, but most of the Americans, especially during the times running up to the civil war, were transplanted Europeans who brought many of the cultural, and political, biases over with them.

True, but even so, the situation was different. They came to the country over a short time and had to start over all together in a new place - largely at the same time.

Whites and Indians were not competing on a relatively equal technological level, nor on an equal racial level. In Europe it was difficult to distinguish between natives of different countries simply by their appearances, especially in border areas. And generally all of the European nations were at comparable levels of technology.

I am not sure of your point here?

The problem isn't that they were forced to become a country, but that once that central government collapsed each tiny region reverted to centuries old hatreds and prejudices. And with few exceptions the individual nations which returned were far worse off than when they had been "united" under a central government.

You think? There were no problems under a united government, just as US citizens are just one big, happy family?

Anyway, you have to go further back. There were functioning nations or areas which were cut to pieces and divided and made into new nations as it suited other powers, expecially after WW1. And it did not work! Obviously the lid comes off when the overall structure collapses, as with the previous Sovjet Union.

[denuseri]

So: Yes I can imagine all too well the horror that would have continued perhaps right on up to this day if allowed to go on and it were not impeded by outside force of arms.

Actually, as far as I know it was not impeded much by outside forces, and, as you say, the problems continue today in varous forms in spite of a united America.

I am obviously not speaking for slavery (real slavery), but I am in doubt about how much difference it would have made. There is no country today, as far as I know, that have open slavery these day, however else things have happened with their history.[/QUOTE]

lol you kinda sounded like your were trying to defend it as an institution there for a while hon.

I dont underrstand all the "selective" reading of my posts, ... the problems wouldnt have ended if it was not for the deployment of ouside forces (ie federal forces being used in not only the civil war era but also later during the civil rights movement era as well,, not just once or twice eaither, and they are "outside forces" becuase they are from outside the states in which the problems were still occuring and being supported by the internal authorities of said states) and the specific problems I mentioned very clearly are well documented, (as are the dates when they were dealt with) they are part of the public record.

Lincoln himself held the view that slavery would have eventually faded away, it was a naive view considering, but a noble one none the less, he held that view rather tenaciously despite all evidence to the opposite before the war started and well into it. Finally he eventually realized that no matter what he did to mullify or apease the South in an attempt to get them to reverse voluntaraly their succession that the South was in it to the end and was not going to give up their evil ways until they were forced to at the end of a gun.

If you really dig some and look at the history of real slavery in the world wide setting you will also see it is rife with wars over it of one kind or another.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MMI those were a nice bunch of informative links about it all too, and for that I thank you!

[thir]

lol you kinda sounded like your were trying to defend it as an institution there for a while hon.

You know me better than that ;-)

I dont underrstand all the "selective" reading of my posts, ...

Selective? How so?

There seems to be at least 3 angles in this:

1) The problem if whether an area has a right to become independant. I have discussed this previously, as an discussion in general, and without looking at what would have happened with the slavery issue.

2) Is whether or not there would be slaves in the Southern states today if US had not been united.

Lincoln himself held the view that slavery would have eventually faded away, it was a naive view considering, but a noble one none the less, he held that view rather tenaciously despite all evidence to the opposite before the war started and well into it. Finally he eventually realized that no matter what he did to mullify or apease the South in an attempt to get them to reverse voluntaraly their succession that the South was in it to the end and was not going to give up their evil ways until they were forced to at the end of a gun.

I do not think it was naive to think that slavery would have faded away, for the same reason that is started. It payed to have slaves. But with the advancing of technology machines would be much cheaper.

I still and definitly do not think so - call it lack of imagination maybe, but no country has slaves in this day and age, and not, I think, for humanitry reasons.

As for the evil ways of the South, much of the world has engaged in slavery all over the world, including, and, as I am informed, the Nothern states, the latter just not in anything like the scale in the South. Not by way of excusing it, just to say that the South was the only place with this evil ways, and yet the world is free of it. At least officially.


3) The third question is how it would have gone for the freed slaves aftereards, without influence from outside the southern states.

the problems wouldnt have ended if it was not for the deployment of ouside forces (ie federal forces being used in not only the civil war era but also later during the civil rights movement era as well,, not just once or twice eaither, and they are "outside forces" becuase they are from outside the states in which the problems were still occuring and being supported by the internal authorities of said states) and the specific problems I mentioned very clearly are well documented, (as are the dates when they were dealt with) they are part of the public record.

Here I am more in doubt. I know of course about all the exploitation, the violence, and segragation, and so on. The whole world does. The men and women of the civil rights movement in the South have all my respect and admiration, I cannot think that I would ever have the courage to stand up to such violence and attitudes, and I would not have their courage forgotten or belittled. But maybe you are right that they were up against so much that they could not have come to where they are now without outside help.

It is a moot point. I am trying to think of other places where people have, or haven't, been able to be free on their own. Ireland comes to mind, they had to do it on their own since noone was very interested, and they managed. South Africa? They did have help. Could they have done it on their own, despite all their courage? I am not sure. Egypt did it themselves, if done it is. Lybia is getting help, and for a good reason. Native Americans? Didn't when it counted, what now?? Greenland? No help.

That is all I can think of now. It doesn't answer my question.

Any comments, anyone?

[denuseri]

You know me better than that ;-)



Selective? How so?

Selective in that you seem to be ignoring some things to focus on others in my posts is all, like your filtering what you dont want to see or somthing, which I am sure isnt the case so much as we are hitting that same cultural comunication barrier you and I hit every so often and for that I apologize.

There seems to be at least 3 angles in this:

1) The problem if whether an area has a right to become independant. I have discussed this previously, as an discussion in general, and without looking at what would have happened with the slavery issue.

They wouldnt have wanted to seperate if it were not for the slavery issue though. You dont have one with out the other, its a cause/effect relationship. Like does generic group A have the right to seperate itself governmentally from the pact it made with generic group B? Well, the answer to that of course allways must depend on the reson why the seperation is desired, and what the outcome of such seperation will be, does it not?



2) Is whether or not there would be slaves in the Southern states today if US had not been united.

I believe that alltough slavery retarded modernization during the industrial era, that eventually the south would eaither have had to modify what slavery was (ie converting it into peonage -which they did after the war in some areas of the south, or as was done in Russia under the Tzars with the serfs which such situations still often were not resolved without violence) or it would have remained from the modernized point of view to be allmost "frozen in time" as it were, like so many other places that became isolated and "fell behind". It most likely would have looked a lot like South Africa did during Apartide. Not pretty by any means huh?



I do not think it was naive to think that slavery would have faded away, for the same reason that is started. It payed to have slaves. But with the advancing of technology machines would be much cheaper.

In the case of the south it was the aquisition of such a machine (the cotton gin) that made slavery so profitable to begin with. Before that slavery in the south was rather numerically on the way out the door and looking to transit as it had all over the world into a different form of "economic" control such as was done with serfs and other places where peonage continued right into the modern era. The reason it was niave for Lincoln to feel that way is obvious...every sign around him was pointing to a war occuring Lincoln just coundnt understand how the Southerner's could maintain suh a fanatic hold on something he saw as so moraly reprehensible as to be unchristian. In a way his own ethical perspective made him blind to how human beings no matter how evil their actions always seem to find a way to self justify those actions. Kinda like Chamberline being so blind and accomadating twords Hitler before the outbreak of WW2.



I still and definitly do not think so - call it lack of imagination maybe, but no country has slaves in this day and age, and not, I think, for humanitry reasons.

Well this is after all 150 years later. But you will find that if you really look, that what happened was people started calling slavery something else to make it more acceptable as the enslaved populations became interbread with them in areas where racial bigotry didnt develope. And violence and violent protests against conditions of servitude were often the only way that these conditions of servitude were overcome.

Without the threat of force to back it up, "humanitarian ideals" are just so many empty words in the wind.

As for the evil ways of the South, much of the world has engaged in slavery all over the world, including, and, as I am informed, the Nothern states, the latter just not in anything like the scale in the South. Not by way of excusing it, (sure sounds like it) just to say that the South was the only place with this evil ways, and yet the world is free of it. At least officially.

Which Northern States? It had been abolished allready for the vast majority of the north just as in the rest of the world as you mentioned. The North and the South technically allready had a division in place over which states had slavery and which did not and which new states coming in would be "slave states" and which would not.

3) The third question is how it would have gone for the freed slaves aftereards, without influence from outside the southern states.

See my comments made earlier in this post on Apartide and or where I talked about Russian serfs (which ened in a revolution btw, more violence).



Here I am more in doubt. I know of course about all the exploitation, the violence, and segragation, and so on. The whole world does. The men and women of the civil rights movement in the South (they were not just southerners btw, in fact a lot of the cicil rights movements greatest proponents were from northern states and a lot of them physically went to the south to help the southern people who were still being oppressed at the time) have all my respect and admiration, I cannot think that I would ever have the courage to stand up to such violence and attitudes, and I would not have their courage forgotten or belittled. But maybe you are right that they were up against so much that they could not have come to where they are now without outside help.

History speaks for itself on that point...becuase they did in fact get said help, becuase the people of that time did in fact not stand idely by, they went and helped them. And not just becuase they had "oil" in their country eaither.

It is a moot point. I am trying to think of other places where people have, or haven't, been able to be free on their own. Ireland comes to mind, they had to do it on their own since noone was very interested, and they managed. South Africa? They did have help. Could they have done it on their own, despite all their courage? I am not sure. Egypt did it themselves, if done it is. Lybia is getting help, and for a good reason. Native Americans? Didn't when it counted, what now?? Greenland? No help.

That is all I can think of now. It doesn't answer my question.

Any comments, anyone?

I didnt know Greenland was having a slavery issue?

[denuseri]

I had a Civil War enthusiest friend of mine send me this little link about a Civil War Reunion that took place between the Men who were actually there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIJaxu3w4-U

If these brave souls who were actually in the war can put their differences behind them, why cant we?

[thir]

I didnt know Greenland was having a slavery issue?

They don't. I was broadening the topic into general oppression and if people can get out from under on their own, or not.

[thir]

I didnt know Greenland was having a slavery issue?

They don't. I was broadening the topic into general oppression and if people can get out from under on their own, or not.

[leo9]

I'm sure there would be a group that would stay together, though I couldn't begin to guess how many states would be in that group. And they would still call themselves the United States. But they wouldn't be as large or as powerful as a nation of 50 states has become. And they would likely be very preoccupied by economic conflicts with other states/nations on the continent.

On the subject of counterfactual histories, there's a novel, "Bring the Jubilee,"
http://www.amazon.com/Bring-Jubilee-...3813819&sr=1-1
in which the rump of the USA, lacking Southern natural resources, is a backward rural nation overshadowed by the prosperous Confederacy. I'm not convinced, because it was the North's already emerging industrial supremacy that won the war, and I see no reason to assume that would have gone into reverse. More likely, like the Germans after WW1, they would have thrown themselves into economic progress to repair their pride after the military defeat; and eventually have undermined slavery, and the South's basis for superiority, by mechanising it into obsolescence. It's the backward corners of the Third World that still have slavery as an economic institution: places that can see the benefits of factory industry but can't afford the machines, so replace them with rooms and fields full of labourers who are only an economical alternative because they're not paid.

But that's not to say the War wasn't necessary. It would have taken generations before Northern-made machines were so profitable that slave plantations were no longer economically viable, and one can well imagine the Confederate government subsidising the slave farms as a part of their social heritage. Even if a combination of international pressure and economic obsolescence had led the Confederacy to outlaw actual slavery, it would certainly have remained an apartheid state like the old South Africa, probably to this day.

The other significant counter-history source is the stomach-turning Draka series,
http://www.amazon.com/Domination-S-M...3815110&sr=1-2
which makes the connection beween Confederates and Boers explicit and assumes - even though the author is supposed to be against them - that just by being white supremacists they would be so powerful they could conquer most of the world.

[IAN 2411]

I thought I would bring this back into the picture reference my very first post in this thread. For those that cannot remember, I will jog the memory,

I don’t know a lot about the History of the “United States and this thread is a good lesson I suppose. I think just about everyone on the planet knows about the slavery issues, but denu brought up the point that another side of the Civil war was to keep the states together.

The Roman Empire lasted 500 years [Mostly taken by stealth] [Squandered its wealth.]

The British Empire lasted about the same and by all accounts it was even bigger. [Mostly taken by stealth] [Squandered its wealth and in debt once more]

The USSR lasted 50 years and a bit. [Taken by stealth] [Squandered its wealth on defence in case of a war with the west, due to its oil has gone from rags to riches once more as a single state.]

The European Union is in trouble and there is the fear that now because of its size it is near breaking point. [Throwing its wealth away trying to keep member countries heads above water, and now its bank is almost closed for business] [Picked clean.]

The USA, [Partly taken by Stealth], from the date of the declaration of independence has lasted so far 235 years, but how much longer? [Almost 60% of America’s national debt is owned by the Chinese.]

Now taking that one of the main causes of the break up and downfall of Roman Empire, British Empire and the USSR and possibly the European Union was that it was too hard and expensive to police and govern.

Do you think that all that fighting between the North and South was worth the trouble; because if history repeats itself once more there could be disintegration of the USA from the Fed Government via the ballet box?

It is no good sitting back and saying it will never happen, because who would have thought that all this fighting for freedom and democracy in the middle east would ever take place in our lifetime. They are young people deciding the way they want their countries run. On a comparative scale each one of the states in the USA are bigger than most European Countries.

What’s this about you might be asking? Well I am not knocking the States or trying to pull it down, but there is a lot of unrest in the states now whether you wish to admit it or not. How do I know living in England? I have 18 friends on YIM dotted all over the USA and not one of them is very happy with Mr Obama, because during his administration he has pushed the national debt up by 4 Trillion.

In Europe the countries are falling like flies, and for all those that think that Greece will honour its commitment to the European banks. All that I can say is they have a lot more faith in them than a high percentage of the UK population.

The European banks are running dry, and the reason being is that Europe is too big to financially police. If Europe falls and it is looking very bleak at the moment, then the UK will bleed but not as hard as the rest of the world. The UK has the Commonwealth countries to fall back on, that we never left, something a old imperial dinosaur like me is happy about. The UK austerity is working as long as we stick to it and we have already been where Europe will go if it falls.

I will ask again, is The USA to hard and almost impossible to financially police? No one can borrow from the banks forever. While keeping a federal government and the USA, would it not be better to give the individual states independence on certain issues of financing themselves? The point being that a budget for the biggest state is too hard for the smaller. Neither is it very good for the moral to cream off one state to finance ten others.

Be well Ian 2411

[Thorne]

I'm not too much into high finance, and I literally loathe politics, so take this for what it's worth. But the original intent of the founders of the US was to have relatively independent states with a small federal government to oversee the common defense and basically to mediate any interstate problems. Naturally, as the country grew larger, the federal government grew larger as well. There were, and still are, certain laws and regulations which the federal government needs to maintain, especially regarding interstate issues. It wouldn't be good, for example, if you had to have a different driver's license for each state you intended to drive in. So each state recognizes the driving privileges of people from another state.

However, it does look like the federal system has grown too large, and taken over too many different aspects of governance which should, by rights, be delegated to individual states. And the cost of maintaining this monolithic government has grown too large. It's now beginning to starve itself as the inflow of money from the bottom begins to dry up. It must shrink to manageable size in order to continue effectively. Obama and his people have been no better at making that happen than Bush and his people were before him. EVERY administration since FDR has managed to increase the size, complexity and power of the federal government, at the expense of the individual states.

So yeah, change has to come. I just don't believe it will ever come from politicians.

[MMI]

Falling like flies? Like three flies, perhaps. And two or three more staggering. But it does seem to be true that countries that drew on wealthier countries' credit are now in dire need of those wealthy countries' benevolence to repay the debts they ran up. Where, now, the Celtic Tiger? Behold the Celtic Leech!

But those countries knew what they were doing: wealthy France, Germany, Austria and Italy got into bed with the poorer nations, hoping that, through monetary discipline and economic growth, everyone would benefit. A grand and noble idea. But one that was bound to fail while each nation state ran its own economy and monetary policy, because politicians being politicians - corrupt and clueless - managed those economies and policies in the only way politicians can ... in the way that would (a) serve the particular interests of the truly powerful sectors within each country, and (b) would appeal to parochial views of the majority of voters. Up to now, the Euro's status has been built on the fact that it is the successor to the Deutschmark, which was a remarkably strong currency, managed according to strict prudential principles. But, in my view (for what it's worth) the Euro will never be reliably strong and stable until all of its participants unite their economy and take away nations' powers to make their own fiscal decisions, and manage the currency as strictly as the Mark was.

The striking difference between the Eurozone and the USA is that the US dollar is managed at the federal level (is that the right way of saying it?): one fiscal policy from Alaska to Florida. OK, it can be mismanaged, but up to the time of writing, this has not reached disastrous levels at any time in its 200+ year history. The Euro, little more than 10 years old, faces collapse, according to some commentators.

In the USA, the dollar faces another bout of "Quantitative Easing" (why I bothered to use quotation marks eludes me), but QE - or QE3 as I've heard the next round is to be called - is simply deliberate inflation to reduce the burden of national debt. The extra dollars in circulation will, initially at least, encourage growth in the US economy and all states will participate in that growth to a greater or lesser extent, just like when the agricultural South benefited from the industrial strength of the North after the Civil War was ended

Maybe the Euro will be able to benefit from the dollar's devaluation somehow.

Sterling is no longer the powerful currency it once was, and the old Sterling Zone no longer exists. There is no reason other than misplaced sentiment for its continued survival, and I suggest that the UK should join the Eurozone as soon as possible, to provide another powerful economy that can bolster the currency's strength PROVIDED ALWAYS (as the lawyers would say) that the whole Eurozone economy is united in all relevant ways - taxation, interest, exchange rates etc - within a short and rigid timescale. Thus the EU can progress towards its goal of peaceful harmony and prosperity and the currency will take its rightful place as the world's principal reserve currency.

Until it is overtaken by the yuan, of course!
.
The alternative is that European economies will falter and fall apart. We will then be in the same situation as in the 1930s, giving rise to political extremism and nationalism ... and we all know where that led to. The European Union will have failed in its primary purpose, and the Euro, like the Confederate dollar, will be a footnote in history: a sad reminder of the time when an idea died.

[IAN 2411]

Sterling is no longer the powerful currency it once was, and the old Sterling Zone no longer exists. There is no reason other than misplaced sentiment for its continued survival, and I suggest that the UK should join the Eurozone as soon as possible, to provide another powerful economy that can bolster the currency's strength PROVIDED ALWAYS (as the lawyers would say) that the whole Eurozone economy is united in all relevant ways - taxation, interest, exchange rates etc - within a short and rigid timescale. Thus the EU can progress towards its goal of peaceful harmony and prosperity and the currency will take its rightful place as the world's principal reserve currency.

Until it is overtaken by the yuan, of course!
.
The alternative is that European economies will falter and fall apart. We will then be in the same situation as in the 1930s, giving rise to political extremism and nationalism ... and we all know where that led to. The European Union will have failed in its primary purpose, and the Euro, like the Confederate dollar, will be a footnote in history: a sad reminder of the time when an idea died.

I have a few problems with the quote, and the first being the dollar was not forced on the Americans it was there almost from the birth of America. Yankee or Confederate there is little difference in the wider picture because they were both dollars. All the states were used to handling that type of currency, the politics surrounding either type was dealt with during the civil war. [But if I’m wrong I will stand to being corrected as I have never delved into American history].

The Euro was forced on any country that wanted to join and it was the fiddle that went on with the individual countries treasury that pissed every one off. The only people that wanted the Euro and the single currency were France and Germany, and a few countries that realised if they never voted for it their open cheque would close. The best thing was the UK staying out of it or we would be in the same kind of shit they are in now.

Sterling might not be a strong currency but at the moment it is still stronger than the Euro or the dollar.

Why the hell should the UK join the Euro zone now? Apart from Germany we are paying a lion’s share to the community and getting damn all back in return now, all except a few unworkable laws. That’s a good idea, because then we can kick our austerity into touch and fall down the world hole with the rest of Europe. The only reason the UK received the loan from the banks was because we could be trusted to pay it back. The other reason is because most of the European countries [not all] when added together, owe the UK more than we borrowed. You know the way it goes MMI, you don’t throw more good money away to people that are unlikely ever to repay you. No one can live on a trade deficit if there is no trade.

As for a second currency, I think I have pointed you in the right direction earlier by mentioning the BRIC countries. The only thing stopping it taking place at the moment is the Chinese don’t wish to revalue the Yen until they are ready, meaning the rest of the world won't be.

Be well IAN 2411

[MMI]

While it is true that the dollar was not forced on Americans - it predates independence - the US dollar had as much in common with the Confederate dollar as it now has with the Canadian dollar: a shared name. Nothing else.

"The Euro was forced on any country that wanted to join ..." Since when does willing consent amount to compulsion? As far as I can tell, no-one is really pissed off about Euro membership - witness the attempts to shore it up. Sure Germany baulks at the cost, but does not, in the end, falter. The Euro is far more important than the uneven burden of providing temporary support, and the goal of uniting Europe is worth a much greater cost than buying up some Italian debt.

Besides, it seems to me that the countries most in trouble are the ones that were in receipt of the largest "handouts". Perhaps we held back too much.

As for Sterling, it's a joke. When the Euro was launched in 1999, it was worth 71 pence. It's now worth 86 pence - an increase of over 20%. Sterling might temporarily be outperforming the Euro by tiny amounts due to the debt crisis, but the Euro has the better historical record, and, if it is properly managed, the better prospects, too. I see few benefits from being outside the Eurozone. Sure we can have the Queen's portrait on Bank of England notes, and on coins, and the Royal Bank of Scotland (and 2 other banks) can continue to print its own banknotes in Scotland (doesn't that make you a little bit scared?), but I also see that prices are higher in the UK (and seemingly always have been) than in Europe, while wages are lower. Let us join in and share the benefits of price harmonisation while strengthening the currency.

The UK is just as exposed to the debt crisis as every other European country, and if the Euro fails, Sterling will be brought down too. Remember, when Ireland was teetering, we were worried if we would be next, because we held so much toxic debt. We are not so much better off now, despite what the politicians tell you. Look at Italy and consider, "There but for fortune ..."

At least their political leaders are worth a laugh.

[denuseri]

The Following may help with discussions concerning this aspect of the American Civil War and is taken from : http://www.historycentral.com/CivilW...Economics.html

"In the years before the Civil War, the economic interests of Americans in the North and Northwest grew increasingly further from those of Americans in the South and Southwest. Although the Civil War itself was caused by a number of different factors, the divergent paths taken in the economic development of North and South contributed to the animosity between the regions, the development of the Confederacy and, ultimately, the victory of the Union.

Contrasting Economies
As a nation, the United States was still primarily agricultural in the years before, during and immediately after the Civil War. About three-quarters of the population lived in rural areas, including farms and small towns. Nevertheless, the Industrial Revolution that had hit England decades before gradually established itself in the "former colonies."
While factories were built all over the North and South, the vast majority of industrial manufacturing was taking place in the North. The South had almost 25% of the country's free population, but only 10% of the country's capital in 1860. The North had five times the number of factories as the South, and over ten times the number of factory workers. In addition, 90% of the nation's skilled workers were in the North.
The labor forces in the South and North were fundamentally different, as well. In the North, labor was expensive, and workers were mobile and active. The influx of immigrants from Europe and Asia provided competition in the labor market, however, keeping wages from growing very quickly. The Southern economy, however, was built on the labor of African American slaves, who were oppressed into providing cheap labor. Most Southern white families did not own slaves: only about 384,000 out of 1.6 million did. Of those who did own slaves, most (88%) owned fewer than 20 slaves, and were considered farmers rather than planters. Slaves were concentrated on the large plantations of about 10,000 big planters, on which 50-100 or more slaves worked. About 3,000 of these planters owned more than 100 slaves, and 14 of them owned over 1,000 slaves. Of the four million slaves working in the South in 1860, about one million worked in homes or in industry, construction, mining, lumbering or transportation. The remaining three million worked in agriculture, two million of whom worked in cotton.
Since Eli Whitney's 1793 invention of the cotton 'gin, the cotton industry became a lucrative field for Southern planters and farmers. Utilizing slave labor, cotton planters and farmers could cut costs as they produced cotton for sale to other regions and for export to England. In exchange, Southern farmers and planters purchased manufactured goods from the North, food items from the West and imported luxuries like European designer clothes and furniture from England. The growth of the Southern cotton industry served as an engine of growth for the entire nation's economy in the antebellum (pre-war) years.
The other critical economic issue that divided the North from the South was that of tariffs. Tariffs were taxes placed on imported goods, the money from which would go to the government. Throughout the antebellum period, whenever the federal government wanted to raise tariffs, Southern Congressmen generally opposed it and Northern Congressmen generally supported it. Southerners generally favored low tariffs because this kept the cost of imported goods low, which was important in the South's import-oriented economy. Southern planters and farmers were concerned that high tariffs might make their European trading partners, primarily the British, raise prices on manufactured goods imported by the South in order to maintain a profit on trade.
In the North, however, high tariffs were viewed favorably because such tariffs would make imported goods more expensive. That way, goods produced in the North would seem relatively cheap, and Americans would want to buy American goods instead of European items. Since tariffs would protect domestic industry from foreign competition, business interests and others influenced politicians to support high tariffs.
Americans in the West were divided on the issue. In the Southwest, where cotton was a primary commodity, people generally promoted low tariffs. In the Northwest and parts of Kentucky, where hemp (used for baling cotton) was a big crop, people supported high tariffs.

Economic Factors in Secession
As the 1850s proceeded, the divide between the North and Northwest and the South and Southwest widened. The bitter debates over the slave status of newly-admitted states, which had been going on since at least the Missouri Compromise of 1820, were signs of the very real fear Southerners had of having their voice in Congress drowned out by "Yankee industrialists." Incidents such as the Southern protests against the "Tariff of Abominations" in the 1820s and the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s demonstrated how deep a rift the tariff controversy was creating between North and South.
In Congress, Southern Representatives and Senators were concerned that their interests would not be suitably addressed. As immigrants flocked to the Northern areas, swelling the ranks, Southerners were afraid the Northern states would increase their representation in the House of Representatives, blocking "Southern-friendly" legislation. The interests of Southern Americans who were African Americans, however, did not seem to concern a large number of Southern Congressmen. By the late 1850s, the fear of Northern domination in national economic policy, combined with the desire to maintain Southern institutions (including slavery), became a major influence on the people who eventually chose to secede from the Union.
What did the Confederacy hope to accomplish by seceding from the Union? The clearest goal was to defend and preserve the right of Southern Whites, including the right to own slaves. While the concept of owning another human being would obviously be a moral and criminal issue today; many slaveowners either ignored or tried to justify their way out of that dimension, focusing on the economic aspects of slavery. They held that the right to own people was a property right, just like owning land or buildings. Thus, when Northern politicians tried to ensure that new states admitted to the Union were "free-soil" (i.e., that no slavery was allowed), slaveowners felt that their right to settle in the West with their "property," including slaves, was being infringed. In addition, in the minds of secessionists, the threat of national abolition not only had the potential of reducing the wealth of many prominent Southerners, but also interfered with the "property" rights of Southern Whites. Thus, secession seemed to be the only way of preserving those rights.
In addition, some secessionists were interested in preserving the "Southern way of life." While the image of the large plantations and elegant Scarlet O'Hara-esque Southern belles sipping mint juleps was applicable to only a small minority of southern farms, the gentility and clearly-defined class system was something of a comfort, even for those Southerners who did not live in that world. In addition, some accepted the myth of the happy, subservient slave, who was not quite a human being and would benefit from the civilizing influence of Southern gentility. At the foundation of the "Southern way of life," however, was its oppressive economic system. In addition to reducing millions of Americans to the status of chattel, it made it very difficult for non-landed, unskilled Whites to succeeded in the face of labor competition from slaves.
Part of the "Southern way of life" was the European flavor and aspirations of the planter class. This cultural influence grew out of and was fed by the long-standing mutual economic relationship between England and the South. In order to ensure that the British market for Southern cotton remained open, Southern planters and others had to maintain relatively sizable importation of goods from Britain. At the same time, the European influence on Southern gentile society; in education, fashion, arts, and other fields; created a large demand for European imports. An imbalance in this relationship, such as would be caused by the abolition of slavery or increases in tariffs, would have cultural implications for the South.

Economics and the Union Victory
Despite the advantages the Confederacy had in well-trained officers and dedication to a cause, it was inevitable that the Union would win the war. The only hope for the Confederacy would have been that the Union would not resist secession, or that foreign nations would assist the Confederate cause. Once the Union decided to fight for unity and European nations chose to remain largely neutral, there was little long-term hope for the Confederacy. The Union's resources, although far from unlimited, were much greater than the Confederacy's resources, and would eventually last longer.
The Union had more than double the population of the Confederacy (including slaves), and almost four times the number of men of combat age. Even with only 50% of eligible men enlisted, relative to the Confederacy's 75%, the Union still had more than twice the number of people in the armed forces.
In addition to being more industrialized than the South (see "Contrasting Economies" Section), the North had better infrastructure. By the time of the Civil War, an extensive railroad system had been built, with new lines through the Northwest being added. In the South, disputes between states prevented the construction of interstate railroad systems. In all, the North had 20,000 miles of railroad compared to the South's 9,000 miles. In addition to possessing 70% of the total miles of railroad in the United States, the North had 96% of the United States' railroad equipment. The long-standing shipbuilding industry in New England ensured that the North would have a large merchant marine, as well as easy access to naval resources. Because of interstate conflicts, there were few continuous interstate railroad systems through the South. In addition, although there was a small Southern industry producing naval stores, there were few merchant ships or naval vessels in the South.
In the North, the US government was able to fund the war effort with the nation's treasury. The Union had strong banking institutions, and controlled at least 70% of the nation's wealth. To raise more funds, the US government raised taxes on goods and services and set high imports tariffs;. In addition, the Treasury issued paper money ("greenbacks") which was not backed by gold, but by government credit, thus reducing the amount of specie necessary for a given amount of money. The US government also raised money by selling bonds to individuals and banks.
The Southern economy, with its agricultural emphasis and relative lack of industrialization, did not have the money or capacity to support a war effort. The Confederacy had less than $1 million in specie in its treasury. Because of the Union blockade, Southern imports fell drastically, reducing the amount of import customs duties the Confederate government could collect. The blockade also prevented Southern farmers to export their goods; Southern cotton exports, for example, fell to 2% of their prewar volume. Thus, farmers and planters had little income with which to pay taxes. Because of issues of states rights, central Confederate taxation was too controversial to be effective, and the states were not contributing enough to the Confederate coffers to support its needs. The existence of slavery in the South and the unlikeness of Confederate victory made foreign governments generally reluctant to loan money to the Confederacy. The Confederacy tried to raise money by borrowing from its citizens, in exchange for Confederate bonds. The Confederate government issued over $150 million in bonds, none of which was ever repaid.
In order to raise money, the Confederacy printed more currency, about $1 billion, causing drastic inflation. By 1864, Confederate dollars were worth about $.05 in gold. Prices shot up, and many basic foods were out of the price range of most Southerners. In the spring of 1862, bread riots began in many Southern cities, the worst being the Richmond Bread Riot of April 2, 1862. More than a thousand women marched and rioted in downtown Richmond, shouting "bread or blood." Jefferson Davis himself ended the riot by appearing in person and threatening to order the militia to open fire.
By the end of the war, the South was economically devastated, having experienced extensive loss of human life and destruction of property. Poverty was widespread, and many resented the many Northerners and Southerners who took advantage of the needy in the South as the war came to an end. These conditions made it more difficult for the nation to heal the wounds which its union had suffered.

Conclusion
It is clear that economics was only one factor in the Civil War. Nevertheless, the economic tension between North and South contributed greatly to political tensions. In addition, economic realities were largely responsible for the Union's victory. While regional tensions and conflicts remained, the end of the Civil War signaled the beginning of the United States' development, economically and otherwise, as one nation."

[denuseri]

This also may help shed some light on how the monetary system worked during the period and is taken from:

http://www.shasta.com/suesgoodco/new...cles/lucre.htm


"Before the American Civil War, citizens generally conducted trade in the time-honored method of barter or exchange for metal coins. Only when the war left the U.S. bereft of metals did it print and distribute large amounts of paper currency as a way to pay soldiers, purchase supplies and create a standard medium of exchange for citizens.

The U.S. first issued paper money during the Revolutionary War. These square, printed notes were rarely worth their face value and became so distrusted by the citizenry that the practice of printing money was all but abandoned. States were prohibited by the constitution from issuing currency, but virtually anyone else could.
Banks, utilities, and businesses printed and distributed their own currency. The value of these notes was backed up solely by the reputation of the issuing entity. Since most notes could only be exchanged at the issuing establishment, a fistful of local dollars was useless if you traveled 10 miles from home. The value of these notes varied widely-from printed face value to zero. The public largely distrusted paper money, and traded their "faith paper" for metal coin whenever they could.
Within a few days of the outbreak of the Civil War, rampant inflation meant gold, silver and copper coins were worth more than face value. Metal coinage all but disappeared as they were hoarded. Paper money was reluctantly accepted by a distrusting public, as there was no other alternative. This led to a proliferation of paper money-both official and questionable.
Four basic types of currency notes were widely circulated in the Union during the Civil War era: Private Issue, Shinplasters, Federal Issue and Stamps & Fractional Notes.
Private Issue

Railroads, roads, utilities, manufacturers, associations, and banks issued currency notes. It was often a very confusing undertaking for a consumer to establish their value. Unfortunate employees could be paid in company scrip, which was redeemable only at the company store-a handy way for unscrupulous businesses to build on profits.
http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/lucre1.jpgThe most universally accepted paper money were bank notes. Bank notes were promissory notes--more like a check of today. These notes could be exchanged for Federal issue notes, and as such had some value. Banking was not well regulated, and new banks would start up then become "broken" with frequency. Broken Bank currency was valueless--the consumer had to be wary.
Generally, the better the artwork on the note the more it was trusted. Fine examples of the engravers art can be found on private and bank notes. Favorite themes were allegorical or mythological scenes, scenes of industry, and scenes of the discovery and exploration of America. "Cheesecake" was often featured as bare breasted Liberty or unclad goddesses stalked across the note.
Shinplasters

Enterprising businesses adopted the practice of issuing a promissory note called a shinplaster in lieu of unavailable coins. These notes came in a variety of sizes and were redeemable for merchandise only at the merchant of issue. Customer pressure led businesses to promise an exchange of shinplasters for bank notes if the customer could save up one dollars worth. This promise was printed prominently on the face of shinplasters to inspire trust and acceptance.
Regimental sutlers generally gave change as shinplasters. Sutlers also printed special notes "for the accommodation of the officers", often featuring the image of the officer, thus appealing to their vanity as well as their graft. These sutler notes were purchased in bulk at discount by the regiment and distributed to the officers, who could exchange them for company and personal supplies. They might also hand them out to opportunistic lickspittles in the ranks as reward for special merit.
Postage Stamps & Fractional Notes

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/lucre.jpgThe lack of coin for making change was partially alleviated by using postage stamps. Stamps had a constant value and were official issue of a sort. They could be more widely exchanged than local shinplasters. Stamps, however, often became no more than a sticky mess in the pocket, and the Post Office was hard pressed to meet the demand for stamps due to this practice.
Fractional Postage Currency in a larger, more convenient size without glue was first issued in 1862. Originally these notes were issued on perforated sheets so that the required amount needed was torn off. These were popularly accepted, and as demand exceeded the perforation machinery, the notes were issued on plain sheets and the consumer cut off as many as were needed for a transaction.
Federal Issue

At the beginning of the war Demand notes and Interest Bearing Notes were available. Most pre-war issues were large denominations used for exchange of funds between banks. The US Notes of Series 1862 and 1863 represent the first generally accepted and circulated currency. Federal notes were printed by private companies (who also printed notes for the Confederate Government).
US notes were known as "greenbacks" due to the intricate design, in green, printed on the back of notes to discourage counterfeiting. It was not until 1863 that the US government halted the practice of private issue, and US currency began to be accepted as the standard of exchange.
By the end of the Civil War the US economy remained relatively strong and Federal issue was THE standard of exchange for U.S. citizens. The stability of paper currency and its convenience of use increased popular acceptance and "greenbacks are still the medium of exchange used today.

For more information, the Federal Reserve Bank's On-Line Exhibit of American Currency offers high quality images of Civil War currency and interesting miscellany on the economy. "