Dear Goodyguy;
You wrote:
And you have a source of validation or extraordinary proof for this extraordinary claim?
You seem so sure of it that perhaps you possess some incontrovertible proof. Or is your statement just based on emotion or wishful thinking?
My question is, can you provide some incontrovertible proof to the contrary, my friend? And therein lies the Pandora's Box. It's difficult to proof the legitimacy of an actual action, simply because no one would ever think they would need to require proof of such an action. It would be akin to stating "Can you provide proof that you purchased that televesion set on 12 March 1971?"
The set was legally and lawfully purchased, the receipt filed away and eventually disgarded sometime after the warranty expired. This does not mean that the TV set was not legally purchased my friend. It merely means that receipt of purchase no longer rexists.
On the other edge of the sword, very rarely does someone keep a comprehensive record of illegal activity, therefore those records most probably do not exist either.
I personally believe that there exists isolated treasure caches from the Civil War era, mostly due to widespread distrust in the banking system and no firm knowledge of future events, therefore many Southern landowners and people of means cached their valuables until the future seemed brighter. And in doing so, many times the caches were lost, or the original owner passed away before recovering the cache, etc.
However, I do not believe there was a concerted effort by a shadowy group to cache large sums of valuables in order to overthrow the federal government at sometime in the future. Events simply do not unfold this way and people are simply incapable of organizing themselves in such a coherent manner.
It just doesn't add up my friend. If the South had any real source of wealth, they could have purchased weapons and thus extended, and very possibly won the Civil War. After all, they were killing Northerners at a rate of about 3 to 1, however they lost the war of attrition, and the reason why they lost is because they ran out of funds to feed the war machine.
Mampower was not an issue with the Southerners, my friend. Most Southerners were from an agricultural society and therefore large families were the norm instead of the exception. After five years of hard fighting, the South would have been able to field 75-80% of their total original number of forces. On the other hand, after the same five years of fighting, the North would have only been able to field 35-50% of it's original number.
After five years of campaigning, the Southern military ground to a halt because it could no longer afford to field an Army. Fielding troops was never a serious long-term issue for the South, yet feeding and equipping those troops was. When the South could no longer feed and equip it's forces, it was effectively beaten and the war was over.
Your friend;
LAMAR