Slavery Shrunk America

I was looking at one thing, and ended up on another, again…

I’m not even really sure where I started from. Something to do with clams and rivers, then railroads expansion, and Texas… I also took a detour through canals and the ones proposed for Mexico and Nicaragua. I landed on The Gadsden Purchase.

(That link is the ‘duckduckgo’ search on that term. Having used it for a while, I’m quite happy with it. They provide much more interesting links, not dominated by the Wiki links always floating on top like ‘some other, lesser, more prying spying search engines with political connections on the board’ ;-)

http://gadsdenpurchase.com/ claims to be ‘the official site’.

Growth of the USA

Growth of the USA

The Gadsden Purchase is that little wedge at the bottom of the South West under Arizona and New Mexico.

Most of us learn that it happened. That it was after the Mexican / American War (where we got land from California to Texas and up through Colorado to near Canada – those light blue and pink parts. The Oregon part had been claimed by Mexico prior to that war also, so while marked as not a Mexican land on this map, that’s because it glosses over that step.)

At the end of that war, the continental USA was mostly “done” (other than some dividing into States and voting them in). Everyone loves to go through the war and what it meant. Then there’s a footnote that a few years later we bought the Gadsden Purchase. Who? Why? Any background? Those we don’t care about. I never heard them in school.

But those bits are rather very significant. But for them, and their tie to slavery politics (this was before “The War Between The States” – there was little “Civil” about it…) the USA would have been much larger.

The “why” was that some rail road Robber Barons wanted to build a coast to coast railroad. The Mexican succession gave us more mountainous lands than the Rail Roaders wanted. They coveted the broad flat desert to the south. So off went a negotiator to cut a deal with Santa Anna. He was in need of a boat load of cash for some adventures of his own and, frankly, at that time Northern Mexico was basically an empty desert with little productive potential for farms or animals (the major wealth of the time). So they had come crappy desert and we had cash.

The first deal proposed is the one that caught my eye. Not the little minimal wedge. No, it was for more money, but not a whole lot more, and would have included ALL of Baja California and almost all of the set of Northern Mexican States. So look at a map of Mexico, pick out the northern states, and draw a line across their bottom to straighten them out. I’ve not found exactly what was proposed, but it likely would have run along a parallel of latitude (they liked to do that then). Then imagine a USA that reached down to that point and had all of Baja as a state too. Roughly from the tip of Texas over to the Gulf of California.

Would be a rather different place…

Mexico territorial changes

Mexico territorial changes

From the wiki, buried in the details:

Marcy and Pierce responded with new instructions. Gadsden was authorized to purchase any of six parcels of land with a price fixed for each. The price would include the settlement of all Indian damages and relieve the United States from any further obligation to protect Mexicans. $50 million ($1.4 billion today) would have bought the Baja California Peninsula and a large portion of its northwestern Mexican states while $15 million ($419,040,000 today) bought the 38,000 square miles (98,000 km2) of desert necessary for the railroad plans.

Santa Anna was put off by “Gadsden’s antagonistic manner.” Gadsden had advised Santa Anna that “the spirit of the age” would soon lead the northern states to secede so he might as well sell them now. The Mexican President felt threatened by William Walker’s attempt to capture Baja California with 50 troops and annex Sonora. Gadsden disavowed any government backing of Walker, who was expelled by the US and placed on trial as a criminal. Santa Anna worried that the US would allow further aggression against Mexican territory. Santa Anna needed to get as much money for as little territory as possible. When Great Britain rejected Mexican requests to assist in the negotiations, Santa Anna opted for the $15 million package.

Makes it sound like Santa Anna was choosing how much to sell. The truth is a bit more complicated.

But notice the remark about 50 guys trying to capture Baja. Gives you an idea how empty it was of Mexicans. Mostly the local Indians were living in small bands, and occasionally fighting with the Mexicans who did try to take over (or later the Gringos who tried too). That Walker thread leads to an interesting history of someone in California trying to form a Socialist State in Baja about 1910. Another odd thread is that there is a relatively flat and narrow place in the middle of Mexico that has had the canal and / or railroad rights “sold” a few times now. Part of the “deal” included some of those rights.

This link has a much more detailed write up:

http://www.reference.com/browse/Gadsden+Purchase

Isthmus of Tehuantepec

During negotiations of the treaty, Americans had failed to secure the right of transit across the 125 mile wide Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The idea of building a railroad here had been considered for a long time. In 1842 Mexican President Antonio López de Santa Anna sold the rights to build a railroad or canal across the isthmus. The deal included land grants 300 miles wide along the right of way for future colonization and development. In 1847 these rights were acquired by a British bank, a development that could lead, Americans feared, to British colonization in violation of the precepts of the Monroe Doctrine. American interest was further piqued with the 1848 discovery of gold in California.

So one other odd footnote to history is that we could have ended up with a 300 mile wide British Colony across the middle of Mexico… coulda woulda shoulda…

The Memphis commercial convention of 1849 recommended that the United States pursue this trans-isthmus route since it appeared unlikely that a transcontinental railroad would be built anytime soon. Interests in Louisiana were especially adamant about this option, believing that any transcontinental railroad would divert commercial traffic away from the Mississippi and New Orleans. Also showing interest was Peter A. Hargous of New York who ran an import-export business between New York and Vera Cruz. Hargous purchased the rights to the route for $25,000, but realized that the grant had little value unless it was supported by the Mexican and American governments.

In Mexico, topographical officer George W. Hughes reported to Secretary of State John M. Clayton that a railroad across the isthmus was a “feasible and practical” idea. Clayton then instructed Robert P. Letcher, the minister to Mexico, to negotiate a treaty to protect Hargous’ rights. The United States’ proposal gave Mexicans a 20% discount on shipping, guaranteed Mexican rights in the zone, allowed the United States to send in military if necessary, and gave the United States most-favored-nation status for Mexican cargo fees.

The treaty was never finalized. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, which guaranteed the neutrality of any such canal, was finalized in April 1850. The Mexican negotiators, hurt by this agreement which eliminated the ability to play off the U. S. and Britain against each other, accepted the treaty but eliminated the right of the United States to unilaterally intervene militarily. The United States Senate approved the treaty in early 1851, but the Mexican Congress refused to accept the treaty.

But in the end, we decided to just buy a much smaller part, and at a much higher price per acre.

But WHY?

The wiki makes a brief mention of it:

This version of the treaty successfully passed the U.S. Senate April 25, 1854 by a vote of 33 to 12. The reduction in territory was an accommodation of northern senators who opposed the acquisition of additional slave territory. In the final vote, northerners split 12 to 12. Gadsden took the revised treaty back to Santa Anna, who accepted the changes. The treaty went into effect June 30, 1854.

While the land was available for construction of a southern railroad, the issue had become too strongly associated with the sectional debate over slavery to receive federal funding. Roberson wrote:

The unfortunate debates in 1854 left an indelible mark on the course of national politics and the Pacific railroad for the remainder of the antebellum period. It was becoming increasingly difficult, if not outright impossible, to consider any proposal that could not somehow be construed as relating to slavery and, therefore, sectional issues. Although few people fully realized it at the close of 1854, sectionalism had taken such a firm, unrelenting hold on the nation that completion of an antebellum Pacific railroad was prohibited. Money, interest, and enthusiasm were devoted to emotion-filled topics, not the Pacific railroad.

—Jere W. Roberson, The South and the Pacific Railroad, 1845-1855

The effect was such that railroad development, which accelerated in the North, stagnated in the South.

The original purchase was seen as adding too much land to “the south” and the ‘negotiations’ of the day were all about the line marking a balance of slave and non-slave states. Had the North been less fixated on slavery, they would have voted “yes” on the first deal that had far more land. In the end, only the smallest wedge possible was added. (Some long time later, after the Civil War, the railroad was eventually built, but even then it was on a line mostly north of the Gadsden Purchase).

The Missouri Compromise said that states below a line could be slave states (after the annexation of Texas it was extended further west).

The parallel 36°30′ north is a circle of latitude that is 36 and one-half degrees north of the Equator of the Earth. This parallel of latitude is particularly significant in the history of the United States as the line of the Missouri Compromise, which was used to divide the prospective slave and free states west of the Mississippi River, with the exception of Missouri, which is mostly north of this parallel.

The north simply could not accept adding that much land below the line. And, in truth, had that much expansion happened, and had the south developed just a bit faster – or the war begun just a decade earlier – the south might very well have won the war and all of subsequent history been much different. It was only the faster growth of northern industry and rail that put it in a position to win (and even then, it was close). The Compromise of 1850 was what put off the Civil War for a decade, gave the north time time needed to grow a lot, and gave the balance of power to the Union Forces. Had the Gadsden Purchase included the northern States of Mexico, it is much more likely that the 1850 compromise would have not happened, or been much less favorable to the north. It is also quite possible that a larger South would have been willing to go to war much sooner. With an earlier start and much more territory, things would have been much different.

Gadsden, BTW, was a slavery advocate. He wanted to found a plantation colony in California and divide the state at the Missouri Line. This was known, so it was not a hypothetical that a larger south would likely have been a slavery south. The guy trying to buy the land wanted it…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gadsden

Railroad executive

Later Gadsden served as the president of the South Carolina Railroad company from 1840 to 1850. In this role, Gadsden and his associates decided to promote the construction of a transcontinental railroad from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. This railroad would hypothetically have been by way of the southern route from Georgia through Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas to El Paso, Texas, and then through the newly-acquired American land that would decades later become New Mexico and Arizona. Finally, after crossing the Colorado River into California, it would have crossed the Mojave Desert and the mountains to the seaport city of San Diego, Calif.

After a lot of surveying work had been done in the Southwest, it was decided that a railroad across the land that later became central New Mexico and central Arizona would be infeasible. Also, much of the boundary between the United States and Mexico had been left unreasonably vague by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that had been signed and ratified by the United States and Mexico in 1848 (see the article on the Gadsden Purchase).

California

Gadsden had supported nullification in 1831. In 1850 he advocated secession by South Carolina when California was admitted to the Union as a free state. Gadsden considered slavery “a social blessing” and abolitionists “the greatest curse of the nation.”

When the secession proposal failed, Gadsden, working with his cousin Isaac Edward Holmes, a lawyer in San Francisco since 1851, and the California state senator Thomas Jefferson Green, attempted to divide California in two. They proposed that the southern half would allow slavery. Gadsden planned to establish a slaveholding colony there based on rice, cotton, and sugar. He would use slave labor to build a railroad and highway, originating in either San Antonio or on the Red River, that would transport people to the California gold fields.
Toward this end, on December 31, 1851, Gadsden asked Green to secure from the California state legislature a large land grant located between the 34th and 36th parallels; it would eventually serve as the dividing line for the two California states.

A few months after this, Gadsden and 1,200 potential settlers from South Carolina and Florida submitted a petition to the California legislature for permanent citizenship and permission to establish a rural district that would be farmed by “not less than Two Thousand of their African Domestics”. The petition stimulated some debate, but it finally died in committee.

But history is what it was. The desire to balance slave and non-slave states has left a legacy of a smaller, but perhaps freer USA.

Had Gadsden managed to buy the larger lands, and built his railroad coast to coast (and connecting much of the South on an East West line) and but for one committee, having a Southern California in the Slave States, the combination would have been a much different one, once The Confederacy was formed.

So here we have another of those hinge points of history. A place where, though largely a footnote on Western Expansion now, was in fact the place where fate was made. Where a larger USA was halted. Where a Mexico that would survive was made. Where what would likely have become an Anglo dominated central stripe of Mexico with a canal and rail was ended. And a place where the eventual Union win was given greater strength. One congressional vote to buy less, one California committee saying “no thanks”.

After the purchase, Santa Anna was run out of office and no further opportunity to buy Mexico would present itself. The time was past.

Though at least one person is still thinking along those lines:

http://lenpenzo.com/blog/id587-how-mexico-can-save-its-oil-industry-sell-baja-california-to-the-us.html

However that good news continues to be tempered because the state-owned Mexican oil monopoly known as Pemex currently lacks the financial resources and expertise needed to exploit the newly-discovered deep water oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. The resulting capital shortage is further compounded by Mexican law, which still prohibits the foreign investment that Pemex desperately needs to extract the crude.

Last year, Mexican President Felipe Calderon made very modest strides in reversing Pemex’s monopoly but he faces an uphill battle to get any meaningful reforms. This is because most lawmakers believe a national monopoly is the only way to ensure that the majority of Mexico’s oil profits remain in the Mexican Treasury.

Mexico’s economy absolutely depends on oil exports; fully 60% of Pemex revenues are routinely siphoned off to fund 40% of Mexico’s federal budget. If Mexico’s golden goose is to be kept alive and kicking, and if America wants to avoid another potential gas crisis, it is imperative for both countries that Mexico’s nascent monster oil field reaches its full potential.

However, in light of Mexico’s reticence to foreign investment in its dying oil industry, one is left to wonder exactly how that country plans to raise the capital necessary to fully exploit the potential of its newest oil field.

Here’s a crazy suggestion: Why doesn’t Mexico sell Baja California to the United States?

The idea isn’t a new one. In the mid-nineteenth century the United States made two separate formal requests for Baja California’s eclectic array of arid desert, rugged coastline, and fertile farmland. The first came in 1848 during negotiations to end the Mexican-American War. Six years later, a second request was made to include Baja California as part of the Gadsden Purchase.

And, a bit further down, a reference to Reagan that probably needs a little ‘dig here’… was he looking to buy a bit of Mexico too?

But, in inflation adjusted dollars, the southwestern land buy known as the Gadsden Purchase was settled for roughly $30 per acre. In The Annexation of Mexico, John Ross writes that the Reagan administration wanted to buy Baja California for $105 billion. If Ross’s account is true, the US made an inflation-adjusted offer for Baja California in the neighborhood of $200 billion. That’s $5,580 per acre.

For $200 billion Mexico would receive a significant cash infusion equivalent to roughly 20% of its 2008 GDP. Assuming up to half of that will be needed over the next decade to sustain Mexico’s domestic oil production at current levels, that still leaves $100 billion to stimulate the Mexican economy via public works projects and other improvements to the Mexican infrastructure.

For the United States, a secondary effect of the sale would be the naturalization of up to three million new American citizens that are currently residing in Baja California — many of those poor and dependent on government support. But that’s a manageable issue; after all, we’ve been there and done that already. The INS estimates that the number of unauthorized Mexicans residing in the United States increased by almost that much between 1990 and 2000.

As we note at the bottom, the Mexicans want to come to America anyway, so why not? If we can just print paper and put $1 Trillion into boondoggles, why not just print up a bundle to buy Northern Mexico? It looks like it is priced well within the acceptable range. The “locals” are moving this side of the border in droves, so why not just move the border? And Mexico will be really needing a lot of gringo dollars soon if the assertions about rate of oil depletion and degree of dependency of their budget are accurate.

Yes, I can hear the same kind of political demographic arguments rising… how it would shift the balance of Republicans and Democrats, how it would shift the ethnic center to more Hispanic. But if we could get past such things… would not a larger and more integrated USA del Sur be better all around? Maybe we could even build that rail and canal system while we were at it… The South Shall Rise Again? But maybe speaking a bit more Spanish… Or perhaps, just like that canal and rail corridor, it’s one of those ideas that keeps coming around and never quite happens.

Subscribe to feed

Advertisements

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in History and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Slavery Shrunk America

  1. Jason Calley says:

    Another case where history sits on a knife edge! There are so many such cases — but that is not surprising when dealing with chaotic systems. Here we have, in humanity, a system with absolutely massive inertia, and a seeming inability to change as it circles over and over around various stable strange attractors, and then one day, one small push at exactly the right time and the right place and SWOOSH we find an entire nation (or two or three) have switched rails and are heading down a very different track.

    E.M., you come up with some of the most interesting ideas and connections!

    PS Speaking of slavery in the US. I have tried multiple times to find the ending dates of slavery in the various states, and still believe that somewhere out there there must be a simple list of states and end dates. You might think such a list would be easy to make, but there are, in fact, complications. For instance, some states did not outlaw slavery completely, but rather outlawed any new slaves but still allowed old slaves to remain. Some said no slaves under a certain age, but those older to remain as slaves, etc. What that means is that some states which we assume were non-slave states during the Civil War (like New Jersey, or New Hampshire) actually still had slaves, but just not so many. If anyone has a link to a list of dates for each state for the actual end (not merely the diminution) of slavery, I would appreciate knowing it. Thank you.

  2. Serioso says:

    Given that Baja is (1) sunny and (2) thinly populated and (3) not far from major US population centers: It might be a fine place to install massive solar-electric power plants. We probably wouldn’t have NIMBY problems, either!

  3. Judy F. says:

    When I was in grade school, history was boring and dry, an endless recitation of dates and facts that I didn’t really like. A number of years ago I started working on my family history, and all of a sudden those dry and dusty facts involved my own ancestors. History became incredibly more interesting.

    My family settled in Southern California ( Norhern Mexico?) in 1847, after having wandered over a good part of the western USA, . My 2x great grandfather had grown up in the South and kept his Southern sympathies and prejudices. When he started courting my 2x great grandmother, her mother did not care for him because of his political views. (It must have worked out, since they were married in the early 1850’s). Even though there were attempts from Back East to make Southern California into a slave state, I’m not sure that would have been a majority view of the people living there.

    As we look back at human events, treaties and new boundary lines, we sometimes forget that old sympathies die hard. Just because on a certain date something happened, doesn’t mean that all of a sudden everyone is pleased with the outcome. If we move to a new country, we would anticipate some changes, as we adapt to our new surroundings. Imagine how you would feel if the new country moved to you. How long would it take to change your allegiances? After all, your house is stil in the same place, you still wear the same clothes, speak the same language, but “voila” somebody just bought part of your country, It sounds a lot easier from the distance of time and generations than it probably was.

  4. John F. Hultquist says:

    ? “The War Between The States”
    That would be The War of Northern Aggression, as my wife’s southern friends call it.
    ———————————

    Actually, the statement that really caught my attention was this:

    It was becoming increasingly difficult, if not outright impossible, to consider any proposal that could not somehow be construed as relating to slavery and, therefore, sectional issues.

    Consider substituting the term “carbon dioxide” for slavery and the term “government aggression” (or choose a better term) for sectional issues. Think of the infiltration of CAGW types into all parts of our society and even if it is shown that CO2 is a non-factor there will be a generation or two of these types still wanting to control and change things to their liking. Only the very young will live long enough to see this (metaphor alert) wave of guilt play itself out in a distant future. Although it is becoming increasing clear that some near-term calamity (asteroid, Iranian bomb) might refocus everyone’s attention.
    —————————————–

    Jason Calley,
    I was born and raised in Pennsylvania and so took your comment to check on slavery there. For a good report and links to other northern states:

    http://www.slavenorth.com/pennsylvania.htm

  5. Sera says:

    @ John F. Hultquist:

    In old Savannah, GA and Beauford, SC it is still called The War of Northern Aggression. But I first heard the expression in a Bugs Bunny/ Yosemite Sam cartoon. I’ll have to look that up…

  6. w.w.wygart says:

    The basic outline of the story of the Gadsden Purchase jibes pretty well with what I learned as far back as high school, but the larger context is something I’ve missed till now, very interesting. I think Pointman did a good job pulling the various strands together, but I think the point of how strongly the Antebellum South was driven to expand its slave holding was not put strongly enough.

    I’ve been back and forth on the issue a couple of times in my adult life, and I’m still, even as a Yankee who is a little apprehensive of the ‘Northern’ propensity of centralization of Federal authority, yet I think it is time to re-remember the infections rot that was at the core of Southern society and economy – slavery, and a slave economy that, propelled a class of some 300,000 Southerners who, “knew nothing but hunting, drinking, gambling and dueling, a class who benefited from slavery and would rather die than work for a living,” [according to Spengler]. It was the task left for the Union army to kill them. As Gen. William T. Sherman put it, “I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy.”

    I served with a great many Southerners when I was in the military, good guys all, brave, dedicated, professionals, yet I doubt one of them would wish to stare down the spectre Slavery, that waits for them in their history.

    Professor Robert E May demonstrated this in his book, The Southern Dream of a Caribbean Empire, 1854-1861. Here is an excerpt:

    “The Memphis Daily Appeal, December 30, 1860, wrote that a slave ’empire’ would arise ‘from San Diego, on the Pacific Ocean, thence southward, along the shore line of Mexico and Central America, at low tide, to the Isthmus of Panama; thence South – still South! – along the western shore line of New Granada and Ecuador, to where the southern boundary of the latter strikes the ocean; thence east over the Andes to the head springs of the Amazon; thence down the mightiest of inland seas, through the teeming bosom of the broadest and richest delta in the world, to the Atlantic Ocean’.”

    May quotes Ortis Ferry, congressman from Connecticut summing up the issue:

    “Let but the ties which bind the states to the federal government be broken and the leaders of the rebellion see glittering before them the prizes of a slave-holding empire which, grasping Cuba with one hand, and Mexico with the other, shall distribute titles, fame and fortune to the foremost in the strife. Such, in my opinion, is the real origin of the present revolt, and such are the motives which inspire its leaders.”

    This slave motivation if fulfilled would also have continued to affect the economic development of the South as it eventually did historically, that is an socially regressive, relatively small agrarian society based on chattel slavery, with little industrial development, and a large, dangerous [to the slave owner] slave population. The South’s culture modeled itself on an idle and landed aristocracy. Those [white men] who were not presently members of that class, certainly aspired to it and expansionist policies [south of the 36th parallel] certainly fed it.

    The fact of the matter is that the Union won the war with one hand tied behind its back industrially and demographically, and better than 25% of white southern men or military age died to support the lie that Southerners were simply patriots fighting for love of their homeland.

    It is truly sad that such caused inevitably bring such a downfall. The other night I watched, A Woman in Berlin, a very stern account by an anonymous German woman of what befalls a nation when some other nation has had to stir themselves to put such a deviant ideology in its place.

    Let us hope we see no more of that, and have learn’t our lessons.

    W^3

  7. Pascvaks says:

    The more Mexicans cross the US border, the larger their percentage of the US population, the more likely that Mexico will cease to exist as a seperate and independent country. The way things are going now, it’s possible that by the end of this century there will be no Mexico except in legend and history books. No doubt the claim that Americans speak English will also die, what we currently speak is less and less English than ever it was. What we will speak tomorrow will be a version that would have been spoken in England had the Armada been victorious. After Mexico, the Central American states, then South America. Time and tide..

  8. w.w.wygart says:

    Chiefio,

    My apologies – no excuses – I should know better than to try to do two things at once, I always wind up looking like an idiot.

    W^3

  9. Jason Calley says:

    @ John F. Hultquist

    Thank you for the link! It has some very good information! One of the problems with history is that popular history, that is to say, the story of our history as it is taught to the masses is something of a movie director’s version of the truth. Whenever the facts get in the way of a simple, easily explained plot and a memorable story — well, the facts get tossed out in favor of simplicity. The facts about slavery, both in the south and in the north, got thrown out years ago.

    As for that name, “The War of Northern Aggression,” I have to admit to using it myself, mostly for shock value on young people who have only their grade school history to rely on. Always good to make them think! Honestly, perhaps the most accurate name is “The War of Southern Independence.”

    @ w.w.wygart

    One of the reasons why I was grateful for the link mentioned above is that it is important to remember the presence of slavery in the Union during the war. There were slaves actually working to build the US Capitol Building during the war. Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and much of Tennessee, remained as slave holding areas during the war. Include in that slavery in varying amounts in Delaware, New Hampshire and other Northern states. None of that is meant to be an excuse for slavery, but is only meant to point out the error in viewing the war as one fought by free states against slave states. I would certainly agree that slavery was the snake in the southern Eden, but I would disagree that either Sherman or Lincoln were fighting to kill the snake. In Lincoln’s words: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. ”
    http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
    The war was fought to prevent the South from leaving the Union — or even more accurately, it was fought to keep Federal properties and tax revenue from the South to support the Union. Again, to quote Lincoln: “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

  10. Pingback: The Peregrinations of Chiefio-A Comment on the Downfall of the Slavery Driven Expansion of the Antebellum United States | The Coraline Meme

  11. R. de Haan says:

    Whatever the motivations it wasn’t slavery that shrunk America.
    Economic and political power motives come closer to the truth.

    Ending slavery was the moral excuse, nothing more, nothing less.

    Today we have this Senator McCain who is making a case to bomb Syria “in the name of humanity”. No sane person in the world will let him get away with this.

    Just to make my point, have a read at this article which is translated from Dutch to English so you’re prepared for some crooked text.
    The truth about Syria we never hear
    http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elsevier.nl%2Fweb%2FOpinie%2FAfshin-Ellian%2F332876%2FDe-waarheid-over-Syrie-die-we-nergens-horen.htm

  12. R. de Haan says:

    As Globalist powers are set to dissolve the concept of “sovereign states” there is no longer a need to buy or conquer countries.

    All you need is the EU/UN administrative systems based on Agenda 21 and a favorable regime to execute the rulings.

    That’s where the Arab Spring is all about and it will also influence the development of the America’s.

    Unless we stop it.

    Take Spain for an example:

    The end of Merkel’s Europe
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2012/03/end-of-merkels-europe.html

  13. Pascvaks says:

    @ R. de Haan says:
    “As Globalist powers are set to dissolve the concept of “sovereign states” there is no longer a need to buy or conquer countries.”

    Have to ask who these ‘Globalist Powers’ are if they aren’t the fat cat ‘Sovereign States’ with the power to do what you’re saying is being done. I like to blame the Club of Rome, the UN, George Soros, Obummer, and ‘She’ Clinton, as much as anyone for the curruption and evils of the world, but I just can’t imagine that they have any sway, really, and shouldn’t get too much credit for the slide down the muddy slope your speaking of. I still think there’s something in the water and I still blame the Evil Empire and the Chinese for putting it there. The US, the UK, the EU, etc. all going broke? The Arabs in a tiff and one civil war after another after years and years of nearly total silence and calm subjugation? The Chinese the Big Cheese of the financial sector? The Global Warming twits? The Depression ain’t so bad and better than an oil economy idiots? The DOJ and EPA wierdo’s? The Supreme Court that’s 50:50 Americans and Kommissars? No pipeline from Canada? Everybody on food stamps? Free Federal Mortgages? This is not ‘normal’, ‘everyday’ stupidity; I’m telling you there’s something in the water. (Maybe it’s the Mexican cherry tomatoes;-)

  14. R. de Haan says:

    Pascvaks says:
    11 March 2012 at 2:13 am

    “the larger their percentage of the US population, the more likely that Mexico will cease to exist as a seperate and independent country”

    The number Irish living abroad has surpassed the number of Irish actually living in Ireland a long time ago.

    Therefore I don’t think immigration play’s a dominating role weather a country will continue to exist or not. Besides that, Mexico is just like the US an immigration country.
    Immigrants come from all over the world and today Mexico is home to the biggest US community outside the USA.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Mexico

    The biggest threat Mexico runs today is the incredible influence of the UN and the infiltration of the drug mafia in government.

  15. R. de Haan says:

    Pascvaks says:
    11 March 2012 at 4:42 pm
    “Have to ask who these ‘Globalist Powers’ are if they aren’t the fat cat ‘Sovereign States’ with the power to do what you’re saying is being done. I like to blame the Club of Rome, the UN, George Soros, Obummer, and ‘She’ Clinton, as much as anyone for the curruption and evils of the world, but I just can’t imagine that they have any sway, really, and shouldn’t get too much credit for the slide down the muddy slope your speaking of.”

    http://green-agenda.com and UN Agenda 21.

  16. adolfogiurfa says:

    Death is the final purifier…

  17. Jason Calley says:

    @ Pascvaks
    “This is not ‘normal’, ‘everyday’ stupidity; I’m telling you there’s something in the water. ”

    It does seem that way, maybe even literally. Floride is a known neurotoxin which studies show reduces IQ. More importantly it is difficult after reading John Taylor Gatto not to believe that the educational system of the US (and presumably others) has been designed to produce docile mediocrity — or worse.

    I would strongly recommend reading this short essay by Fred Reed: http://www.fredoneverything.net/DarkAgesII.shtml
    “I have actually seen a teacher saying that parents should not let children learn to read before they reach school. You see, it would put them out of synch with the mammalian larvae that children are now made to be. Bright children not only face enstupiation and hideous boredom in schools taught by complacent imbeciles. No. They are also encouraged to believe that stupidity is a moral imperative. “

  18. Pingback: The Societal Scars of Slavery-Searching for Common Ground an Ongoing Dialogue | The Coraline Meme

  19. R. de Haan says:

    No fluoride in German tap water so that can’t be the problem.

    Recently published research: German kids who have the luck to grow up in a family with more than 100 books on their shelfs do much better at school.

    Unfortunately the report didn’t say how many families in Germany have more than 100 books on their shelves.

    I always knew public book burnings were an act of intimidation and dumbing down.

    Now the new German elite’s are shutting down electricity generating capacity.
    No nuclear
    No brown coal
    No coal
    No oil
    No natural gas
    No Shale gas

    Even if you have a well filled book shelf, reading books will be much more difficult in the near future, that is If they are not burned to generate some heat in the house.
    Another sign of a pending Dark Age?

    There is no limit to German stupidity

    They continue to make the same mistakes time after time.

  20. E.M.Smith says:

    FWIW, the use of high rapidity short messaging has been demonstrated to cause much shorter attention spans, less critical thinking. It might simply be that the email / twit generation is arriving first in technical fields…

Comments are closed.