John Graham's book 'Blood Money: The Civil War and the Federal Reserve' makes the claim that "the Civil War would not have happened had it not been planned and fomented by Northern capitalists."

by redinator

the amazon page full description:

https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Money-Civil-Federal-Reserve/dp/1589803981/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

"The author chronicles how the divisive antagonisms between the North and South, finally erupting in the spring of 1861, were deliberately agitated by great international banking houses with the goal of provoking secession. According to Graham, these private interests fully succeeded and set up a huge financial empire centered on Wall Street, using public debt as the source of their wealth. This watershed book explores the economic causes of the Civil War, revealing how the Civil War would not have happened had it not been planned and fomented by Northern capitalists."

I'm seeing this book used to justify the wider claim that the civil war was not about state's rights to own slaves. How true is this and the book's claims?

You see a book that says something like "Gerald Ford was paid by the Russians to cover up their part in the Kennedy assassination" . Unlikely: but, how can you quickly assess whether it's worth reading without taking the time to read it? Who has the time? On the other hand, how can you keep an open mind if you reject books that are just unfamiliar?

First question: Occam's Razor. Why is it necessary to have another explanation? Beyond the known documented ones?

Second question: Is the author writing to a purpose? Look at his other publications: does he have a common theme?.

Third question: Is he a scholar in this field?

Fourth question: Is this published by a scholarly press? That would put a manuscript through peer review?

Ask the first question: why have banks involved, now, in order for the war to come about? If they weren't there, wouldn't there still have been enough in the way of a conflict? If you look at the Civil War FAQ, you'll see that the cause of the Civil War is pretty much settled. Slave states and free states have an uneasy series of compromises and work-arounds for decades in order to try to avoid a conflict, but slavery becomes more and more profitable and economic pressure builds over the status of new western territories and the difficulties of having two kinds of laws in one country. The Dredd Scott decision decrees that slavery can exist essentially everywhere, upending all those compromises. The fragmented election of 1860 puts a known abolitionist into the White House, and the southern states secede. How were banks necessary for this?

Ask the second question: It looks likely that, given his other publications, the role of the banks has been magnified in order to find that something other than the Southern insistence on slavery was involved in secession.

Ask the third: It appears he is not a history scholar: he teaches law in Quebec.

Ask the fourth: the publisher, Pelican Press is a small independent press that tends to publish things related to Louisiana, including cookbooks. It is likely it would publish based on a Southern market for the book: like, if it made a case for something other than slavery being the cause of the War.

So, not likely to be what you'd call scholarly. Should you read it anyway? Sure: it's never a bad idea to read dubious books if you've got the time, they make you think..or they should. But if you only have the time to read a good history of the Civil War, I'd check out something by a known scholar who's lived with the sources for a very long time, like James MacPherson.