Amateur speculation on the the anniversary of the burning of Atlanta....what caused it all.

In the 1600s and 1700s, the king decided he needed a counterbalance to the townsfolk and gentleman farmers of the northern colonies because they seemed to want to rule themselves and to think that they were able to rule themselves.

Most present day Southerners could be descended from the immigration that occurred after the potato blight and after the Scottish lords decided to reduce the common folk so they could have more room to raise wool, but before that, the king deliberately chose to send people who might want to have a king.

The Midlands and Ulster county were apparently a little less orderly than now, back in the day, because the lords had killed one another fighting and the townsfolk had run off. The King's plan may have been that the remaining folk would need and appreciate the firm guidance of the new landed gentry of the South, the plantation owners.

The plantation owners were often loyalist during the Revolutionary war.

Perhaps the colonists rebelled when they realized the King was building a society which would be loyal to him and which could send armies to keep the North in line. The tax issue may have only been part of the "long train of usurpations and abuses."

Fast forward to the 1840s. How to get loyalists to come here without making an obvious show of conscripting an army. First, wait until the United States expels all the larger, more dangerous tribes from the Southeast. Then, ban the cultivation of all but one crop. Then, take the blight spores which you had saved in a jar, and let them loose. Pretty soon, all that space the Cherokee created is being flooded with people. Send them officially to Canada, knowing their economy doesn't have a lot of room even if their land does. They will of course flood South across the enormously long, hard-to-defend border.

After all that, the king had his assets in place.

I am not completely against what Nunn said about the North bringing war to (their) country because it's possible Beauregard felt the North preparing for war, but they only did that because the King was clearly positioning his assets to reestablish royal rule.

It makes you wonder whether Harry and Megan are "the Queen's Own Royal Comintern!" Royalists may be trying to subvert politics to allow the border to be open and to rile up the native malcontents to riot. Suppose the royals are actually here to capitalize and try to obtain recognition for their rule from the masses? I actually think Ms. Megan was sincerely disguisted by the whole royal thing but hey, there are other possibilities.

a reply to: Solvedit

plain and simple sherman brunt and destroyed everything he could on his march through the south. that's all it was, had nothing to do with england.

and it was the south that wanted to separate from the north and it's control of the economy.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: Solveditand it was the south that wanted to separate from the north and it's control of the economy.

Of course; how is anything different either stated or implied?

They spent decades positioning their assets, then they struck Ft. Sumter.

a reply to: Solvedit

Very interesting and intriguing theory. I wouldn't be surprised if England sought to exploit the north-south division for their own gains.

But I'm more inclined to think the Duchess of Difficult is working to bring down the monarchy than to think she's working for them. My best guess is that she confused royal life with celebrity life and when she realized she wasn't going to be "thee" star of the royal family, she decided to go scorched earth. With help from other anti-royalists of course.

She also has her own political ambition. Although she doesn't seem to understand that her royal title will be a liability and not an asset here!

It doesn't seem to be working out very well for her tho.

Focus on any Rothschild banking connections and you'll get an answer 😎

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: SolveditBut I'm more inclined to think the Duchess of Difficult is working to bring down the monarchy than to think she's working for them. My best guess is that she confused royal life with celebrity life and when she realized she wasn't going to be "thee" star of the royal family, she decided to go scorched earth. With help from other anti-royalists of course.

They surely prepared her.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: Solveditplain and simple sherman brunt and destroyed everything he could on his march through the south. that's all it was, had nothing to do with england.

They hoped for an alliance with England whether or not England aided and abetted their preparations.

They wanted to be entitled to the land.

If they thought they could do better without the North controlling the Southern economy then they weren't very good at computing what a winning war effort might cost.

In fact, the North may have saved the common people of the South. The Southern landed gentry surely appreciated that they would need to increase their revenues if they somehow got by and beat the North. Which means they might have tried to start expanding their plantations at the expense of other Southern farmers.

You are correct. It's amateur speculation. The dots are so far apart they won't connect.

IMHO the South wanted have a king and a system which guaranteed them the hereditary right to their land.

England may have wanted to see if the South could stand on their own two feet. I am not saying they were ready to stage an invasion; obviously they did not invade, but there seems to be a chance they stirred the pot a little by making sure conditions were right in areas under their control to ensure the Southerners got a lot of allies immigrating into their borders in the 1840s and 1850s.

If England got into another war with the US and then lost some colonies to France or Germany or Russia or Austria-Hungary it would not work out for them. The US levied a 3% income tax to pay for the war; they could have easily leveled more.

They also had committed to ending the transatlantic trade and slavery in their own country and did not want to help the South continue slavery.

originally posted by: schuyler
You are correct. It's amateur speculation. The dots are so far apart they won't connect.

Is this forum for discussing textbook-worthy facts?

originally posted by: Solvedit
IMHO the South wanted have a king and a system which guaranteed them the hereditary right to their land.

England may have wanted to see if the South could stand on their own two feet. I am not saying they were ready to stage an invasion; obviously they did not invade, but there seems to be a chance they stirred the pot a little by making sure conditions were right in areas under their control to ensure the Southerners got a lot of allies immigrating into their borders in the 1840s and 1850s.

If England got into another war with the US and then lost some colonies to France or Germany or Russia or Austria-Hungary it would not work out for them. The US levied a 3% income tax to pay for the war; they could have easily leveled more.

They also had committed to ending the transatlantic trade and slavery in their own country and did not want to help the South continue slavery.

Lyrics
In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip'
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans
We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico



We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round
We filled his head with cannonballs 'n' powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind
We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico
Yeah, they ran through the briers and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

i guess it didn't work out for them.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: SolveditVery interesting and intriguing theory. I wouldn't be surprised if England sought to exploit the north-south division for their own gains.

My point was that England deliberately created the North-South divide by packing the South with Royalists.