Civil War Related

Re: Cornelius Vanderbilt's major $$$ contribution to Jeff Davis' bail.

Multiple Northern railroad interests were licking their chops right after the Civil War to build railroads in the sparsely developed (railroad-wise) South. Some railroaders brought in well known Confederates (like Forrest for example) as minor partners. Their names carried a lot of weight in the South and would help get and negotiate right of ways, etc.

A J.P. Morgan syndicate put together the mighty Southern Railroad after the war. What became the Norfolk Southern was also largely pieced together with the help of big Northern capital after the war.
 
And if the British had won the Revolutionary War, they'd celebrate the capture of "the traitor," Thomas Jefferson. They may have caught him in drag, or they may have caught him banging his slave.
 
Chop said:
Maybe the leftists of the day gave him points for being a transsexual.
Click to expand...

Wow. This means that Jeff Davis is pretty high in the intersectional hierarchy. He'll be deemed a hero on the Left in the future. We're just not woke enough yet.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Wow. This means that Jeff Davis is pretty high in the intersectional hierarchy. He'll be deemed a hero on the Left in the future. We're just not woke enough yet.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this mean that the Civil War was a transphobic action from the North?
 
Last edited:
In Texas, after the war, the (in)famous New Yorker Jay Gould greatly expanded his fortune with his Missouri Pacific (MoPac) and associated lines. He also manipulated the prices of farm products and attempted to corner the gold market. A very ambitious man indeed!

Note: Texas was not always a free market loving, government hating "conservative" sort of place. Texans were highly suspicious of the Jay Goulds and JP Morgans (and any rich 'carpet bagger') of their day and their influence. Texans did not hesitate to use the government to keep big capital in check, especially if it was big Northern capital. Local capitalists often got a pass. (Decades later, Rockefeller was hated throughout Texas, while Cullinan, Gov. Sterling, and the other big Humble and Texaco owners were generally highly regarded--they were OUR rich greedy capitalists!)

Texas (and the Plains states generally) were very much populist anti-Wall Street places. A remnant of that era: a very generous homestead exemption and debtor protections.
 
Last edited:
Read Walter Prescott Webb--one of The University's greatest professors. One of his overarching thesis--Texas is basically a colony of NYC and European cities (the 'Metropole'). When I first heard this, argued by a professor in class, I was so offended I felt like jumping up and kicking his *** in front of his class.

After further reflection, I think Webb and my prof were right--although Houston, Dallas, and maybe Austin have arguably evolved into the Metropole themselves. For instance, I'd say the Permian Basin is a colony of Houston today.

Back to the Civil War--no question the South was an economic colony of the North in the pre and post war period. And they were treated accordingly by their often-bullying colonizers.

I personally hold the view that large influxes of outside capital (whether from NY, London, Tokyo, wherever) are very good things overall, and worth all the crap that comes along with it. This was most definitely NOT the view of most Texans in the days of my grandfathers, great grandfathers, etc. Populism ruled the day in their Texas.
 
Last edited:
Chop, I agree with you. I think outside capital is good as long as the people of the area are involved in the development. The owners and original benefitters will be from outside but if the locals receive benefit and are allowed to start to build their own wealth then it is worth it.
 
Monahorns said:
Chop, I agree with you. I think outside capital is good as long as the people of the area are involved in the development. The owners and original benefitters will be from outside but if the locals receive benefit and are allowed to start to build their own wealth then it is worth it.
Click to expand...
Well stated. I'm in near complete agreement with you.

While the bulk of the massive wealth creation extracted from the ancient sediment of the Permian seas enures mostly to the benefit of big Houston-based (and other remote cities-based) oil and oilfield service companies and their shareholders, great wealth is created in Midland, Odessa, and the rest of the Basin. This comes in the form of huge local payrolls, royalties (yeah some rich royalty holders moved elsewhere, but some live in Midland or on their land), local drillers and other oilfield service contractors and sub-contractors, some smaller local independent oil companies, taxes, spending at retail places, etc. it's a win-win for the locals and the Houston-based (and Dallas and OKC, etc-based) big boys.

As for the South, I say it's better off with the Southern Railroad, etc than without it. I welcome wealthy Northern, overseas, and even Californian (gasp) investment. Yeah, I get the very bad blood with "Yankees" post War. But it's short-sighted, myopic, self-defeating, and provincial not to welcome outside investment--no matter how obnoxious 'those people' might seem.
 
Last edited:
From what I've studied, much more, and much worse, multi-generational bad blood was created by the massive governmental corruption and graft done for the benefit of outside/Northern interests--'carpetbaggers'--during reconstruction. Had Northern interests and capital developed projects and enriched themselves honestly in the South after the war,* we might not have had 100 or so years of regional ill feeling.

This is also a major reason why Texas had virtually no Republican office holders for about 100 years.



* some Northern interests did play it straight down South, no doubt, to the benefit of both themselves and the region.
 
Last edited:
Chop, I am from the Permian Basin. Money may be flowing to Houston, but while the oil and gas industry is healthy there is tons of money added to the local economy. There was a time that Odessa/Midland had the most millionaires per capita than anywhere else in the world. I bet the number is healthy right now too.
 
Monahorns said:
Chop, I am from the Permian Basin. Money may be flowing to Houston, but while the oil and gas industry is healthy there is tons of money added to the local economy. There was a time that Odessa/Midland had the most millionaires per capita than anywhere else in the world. I bet the number is healthy right now too.
Click to expand...
No disagreement here. I'd say that squares up with what I said. 4 of 5 of the top producers in the Basin (Oxy, Chevron, Apache, ExxonMobil) are headquartered out of the area, mostly in Houston. Still, lots and lots of $$$$$ to be made, including for the locals. Salaries, smaller and mid-size independent oil companies, contractors, drillers, royalties, etc.

A win-win situation for both locals and the big-boy outsiders entering the fields. Immediate problem is lack of enough housing!

This sort of feeds into the next thing I'll say, which will surely get some panties in a twist: Colonial situations are not necessarily bad. Some are better than others. The post war North's colonization of the South was highly corrupt and exploitative, although railroads and trade certainly got a kick start of sorts. Also, countless people from the Deep South were left with nothing, which led to their move West and the populating of Texas. A mixed bag.
 
Last edited:
It's sometimes hard for us Gen X (and younger) crowd to fully comprehend the lingering bad feelings the people of this region had towards the North back in the day. I lived up North for 3 years and enjoyed it. I have nothing at all against our countrymen from North of the Mason-Dixon Line. Not so for previous generations.

One of my Grandads used to joke, saying: "I was 18 years old before I realized that 'damn Yankee' was two words." Then again, maybe he wasn't joking...
 
Last edited:
Chop, it was a war. Anything the North did after the war was going to piss off Southerners. They were a conquered people. Family died. Property destroyed. Freedoms curtailed. It was going to take a while for the blood that was spent to be washed away.
 
I will also say that colonization hasn't been a bad thing overall. If you look at areas of the developing world that are doing better than others many times they are areas that had European colonies. It depended on the type of colony and how they were treated but flows of capital and technology are good things.
 
Indeed. And when Andrew Johnson pursued Lincoln's ideas for a reconstruction of the South, the radical Republicans impeached him. The triggering legal issue was the tenure in office act. They came within 1 vote in the Senate from convicting and removing him. In Profiles in Courage, JFK wrote a chapter on the swing Senator from Kansas (I think) who voted against conviction and removal of President Andrew Johnson, and in some ways "saved" the Constitutional separation of powers.

So if you think national politics are divisive and bitter nowadays...
 
Plenty of Yankees didn't care so much for Texas back in the Civil War era (unlike today's Yankees who fawn all over Texas and move down here in droves).

General Sherman was stationed at a Texas fort sometime before or after the War. He said (paraphrased): "if I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." Dude had some serious pent up hate ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top