Protectionism is why the South is so far behind the rest of the states.
Huh? If you mean on an industrial scale, their lack of factories had to do with climate and land fertility. They had a longer growing season, so it was more economically viable to grow then to manufacture. The South was part of the Global Market before anyone else knew what it was. The goods the produced where readily trade-able on the world market and in demand. Also, climate control was an issue, as earlier factories used basic machinery which was influenced by weather much more so than today. How is that protectionist? (Honest question)
I do have to agree with you on one thing, I also find those who blindly worship a flag scary, either Confederate, Nazi, or American. It is one thing as an honorarium to the dead (ie flying a Confederate flag in a civil war graveyard to symbolize the soldiers who fought under that flag), another to idolize without question the government behind it. People aren't perfect, what makes us think a group of them can be.
Oh and BTW: I am a Northerner who had family who served in the Connecticut militias, two of whom never came home. Oh, and my great, great grandfather stories.. they were of Bella Wood and the trenches. I might feel old, but I'm not that old.
Hmmm, no actually it was common up North to be affiliated with one's state. Remember that states were actually responsible for raising forces for the union army back then. So you would have the New York and the PA and Massachusetts units all joining.
True for military units, as State militias accounted for most of the land forces available to the Union. Hence the 3rd Connecticut or the 2nd Virginian. Army's were expensive, and since we as a country had a tradition of citizen soldiers, we continued the concept even to this day. Except when we federalize we tend to remove state designators.
What I was referring to was general citizens while abroad. If you read back through period letters and books, Southerners abroad would usually say "I'm a Virginian" or such when asked from whence they came. Northerners would say "American" or I'm from the US". Sorry for the confusion on that point.
You know, I used to think so too, but the smoking gun for slavery is the confederate constitution.
I disagree here. I think too much weight is getting assigned to this. If I tell you that to be part of my club you have to can not wear a silly hat, you say no and start your own club, might you not specifically allow by your bylaws the ability to wear a silly hat? I think it came more down to a legislative "See, you can't tell us what to do" more then any overriding love of slavery. It was important to them, but not that much. They openly agreed with the US Constitution, just not the Federal goverments level of power.
I can't remember the title or author, but in an old history class they made us read a book by a professor from UoG that speculated that slavery only had another generation or 2 to live due to economics and mechanization. But he did say that a civil war was inevitable due to social and political considerations.
Point is, those industries do not exist unless they were protected. If those industries do not exist, the North is in the same boat as the South. But the North pursued a policy of developing native industrialization through protectionism, got the industry, and won the war. Protectionism worked.
Again, I'm sorry to disagree. Protectionism didn't help as much as the outright cost of shipping did. Local good where cheaper then shipping. Nowadays, we have the inverse problem with foreign goods, like things from China. In today's environment, I would agree with you except for the resources. Look at Japan in WWII, they were protectionist, but lacked the resources to keep up production.
After Goliath's defeat, giants ceased to command respect. - Freeman Dyson