PS: [being inserted into previous post]
The Civil War has been thought to have been fought over slavery. It was and it wasn't. A lot of Abolitionists, Transcendentalists, Puritan Progressives, Quakers, the simmering conscious of Founders since 1776, came to see slavery as racist, necessary to repeal. Certainly. But, even before this, urban, esp., Northern, cities, esp. bankers interested in railroading out west, where the gold was, were looking for yet CHEAPER LABOUR, in a time of massive expansion and overproduction. There were obstacles that could be removed for some companies if labour was made cheaper, when in fact wages/labour were PUSHING HARD TO RISE. So, the urban North (bankers) was looking to free slaves from Southern plantations, bring them to the cities, etc., and there you have easy cheap labour, as an alternative to paying out higher wages, (demanded by quietly rising union forces). The Civil War has been referred to by the South as, "The War of Northern (or urban) Aggression," or a war over, "States Rights." It was also these things, but I do see now how it was a war for cheaper labour. And the whole monopoly-board hop-scotching westward for more FEDERATED (voting) states was a natural imperialism driven by competitions for control of cheap labour, resources, markets, taxes, etc.
After a great era of expansion and cheap labour, we are experiencing a kind of, "War of Southern (or rural) Aggression," sponsored by banks and mega-corps, for what, now? For a reduction of all the labour (and environmental) gains of the last 100+ years. It is a NEW WAR FOR CHEAP LABOUR. A war to deliver labour back away from Sovereign control back into the hands of global banks and Royalist forces. Back to the South, the Military-Industrial, et al, complex, and so forth. However, THIS time, the war is for labour SO CHEAP, that it is CONVERTED BACK INTO SLAVERY! How ironic, yes?!
Well, for a long time, I have viewed industrial OVERPRODUCTION of the 1800's as the main force demanding an opeing up of US trade and marketing overseas, and being therefore a germinal selling-out of American Sovereignty, ultimately, even though,"Free Trade," worked well, so long as certain conditions prevailed economically. Now, the shift has been too great, and free trade is not built to benefit our economy so well, so long as it is premised on old assumptions. Well, we could have avoided much of this naive, early-on selling out if we had merely reinforced raising wages early on, as was the idea of FORD, thus allowing Americans to buy up the overproduction, (along with other programmes). Instead, rising wages has been a sad fight all the way through our history, and now wages are falling and there is virtually no one there to save them. The global market now has the controls. Too much overproduction has been substituted by too much credit, and that has been exploding here, in Europe, and even in the BRIIC countries, as a credit/currency/trade-related consequence. Wages have always been held too low relative to surplus capital, as gained via overproduction or via top-heavy credit. I suspect that the gold standard, as good as it was, may have partly stood in the way of wages rising faster, and so the panics ensued. I wonder how a reset gold standard, after completion of the great shift, might affect wages in the future, should it be instituted.