Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809

VA Viper ^ | 02/11/2018 | Harpygoddess

[harpygoddess]

It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of the people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies.

~ Lincoln

February 12 is the anniversary of the birth of the 16th - and arguably the greatest - president of these United States, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865). Born in Kentucky and raised in Illinois, Lincoln was largely self-educated and became a country lawyer in 1836, having been elected to the state legislature two years earlier. He had one term in the U.S. Congress (1847-1849) but failed (against Stephen A. Douglas) to gain election to the Senate in 1856. Nominated by the Republican party for the presidency in 1860, he prevailed against the divided Democrats, triggering the secession of the southern states and the beginning of the Civil War. As the course of the war turned more favorably for the preservation of the Union, Lincoln was elected to a second term in 1864, but was assassinated in April 1865, only a week after the final victory.

[OIFVeteran]

So what do you think James Buchanan’s response should have been to South Carolina’s succession?

[DiogenesLamp]

But as a Democrat-at-heart you are not allowed to be logically consistent and must happily hold onto self-contradictory beliefs.

Like we can "preserve the Union" if we let all the other states go, so long as we hold on to Virginia.

Yeah, that's not contradictory at all.

[DiogenesLamp]

It wasn't that major of a port for the South.

Let me show you this map again, and perhaps you can then see why it wasn't a major port for the South.

Yup. You are right. It wasn't all that major of a Port for the South. I wonder why that was? Could it be those laws that routed everything to New York? Could it be that if it could achieve about a 50% greater profit for European merchants that it might have become a more important port?

All the money numbers change with independence. Charleston was one of the closer ports in the South for European shipping, and it would have likely raked in massive amounts of trade as a result of that.

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "The north had little to export."

The North & west together supplied nearly half of all US exports.
This link shows the change in US exports from 1860 to 1861.
As you might expect, Southern exports fell by $161 million while Northern exports rose by $62 million.

But it's important to note these lists can be skewed, and we see that by comparing cotton to tobacco.
The South's number one export, Cotton, is 100% a product of the Deep South, and so cotton exports fell over 80% from 1860 to 1861.
By contrast, the South's #2 export, tobacco fell only 15%, why?
Because tobacco was grown not only in the South, but also in the North & West, so loss of Southern tobacco reduced total US tobacco exports by only 15%.
But this example shows that tobacco as a "product of the South" is mis-categorized, because only 15% came from "the South".

As for Northern exports, the largest volumes were manufactured iron & copper, leather goods, candles, furniture, soap & medicinal drugs.
Western exports included wheat, flour, corn, rye, oats, livestock products, wood products & whale oil.

[DiogenesLamp]

So what do you think James Buchanan’s response should have been to South Carolina’s succession?

I know what it was. He sent strongly worded orders to hold those forts. Should he have done this? I don't know his motivation or his thinking.

It is possible that he was one of those people that actually believed that States had no right to independence, or it could be that he wanted to make sure the problem fell into his successor's lap.

Much may have been avoided had Buchanan dealt with it one way or the other. All he did was attempt to preserve the status quo until the problem would be taken up by Lincoln.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Nice switch!

Comparing southern exports during the civil war?

Do you think we are as stupid as you are?

You’re here to sow confusion on every forum you show up on.

We all know that you chose Satan’s game of evolution vs. life, but you’re just as wrong in general politics.
.

[DoodleDawg]

Could it be those laws that routed everything to New York?

No, because those laws didn't exist.

Tariff collection in Southern ports was low because there was no demand for imports in the South. But I said imports and exports. In the same year where over $35 million in tariff was collected in New York - due, you claim, to those laws - over 248,000 bales of cotton were exported from New York. That same year 1.745 million bales were exported from New Orleans, over 456,400 bales were exported from Mobile, and over 302,000 bales were exported from Savannah. Charleston came behind New York with around 215,000 bales exported. Leaving aside for the moment the question of why that law you claim routed all imports through New York didn't route exports through New York as well, it shows that Charleston wasn't the most important port in the South, or the second most important, or the third. It was the fourth most important port, as Guantanamo is the fourth or fifth most important port in Cuba. So why was it worth it for Davis to start his war over?

[BroJoeK]

editor-surveyor: "Nice switch!
Comparing southern exports during the civil war?"

No "switch" there, my point is to show that alleged "Southern products" weren't always from "the South".
You, DiogenesLamp & others often claim "the South" produced some huge percent of total US exports:

DiogenesLamp #153: "The South paid the bulk of the revenues, between 72% and 83% depending upon where you get your numbers, but virtually all of that money was spent in the North, and they knew it. "

My link shows actual numbers for US exports in 1840, 1860 and 1861.
It does show "Southern products" represented 60% of total US exports in 1860, but in 1861 when there were zero exports from the Confederacy, "Southern products" still represented 30% of total US exports.

30%

So that 30% was not from "the South", but rather from Union states which continued to export after Deep South Fire Eaters declared their secessions.

editor-surveyor: "Do you think we are as stupid as you are?
You’re here to sow confusion on every forum you show up on."

I never judge people's IQ's unless they attack mine, which you are doing here.
Nevertheless, there's no need for me to attack your IQ since you've done a great job of expressing it yourself.
As for "sow confusion", I only present facts to people who may not know them.
Confusing?
Sorry about that.

editor-surveyor: "We all know that you chose Satan’s game of evolution vs. life, but you’re just as wrong in general politics."

I'll be happy to continue discussing evolution on an appropriate thread, but for now, let me leave you with this:

Genesis 2:7 "Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

"Mud to man", just as evolution theory concludes.

[BroJoeK]

DoodleDawg: "In the same year where over $35 million in tariff was collected in New York - due, you claim, to those laws -

• "over 248,000 bales of cotton were exported from New York.
  
• That same year 1.745 million bales were exported from New Orleans,
• over 456,400 bales were exported from Mobile, and
• over 302,000 bales were exported from Savannah.
  
• Charleston came behind New York with around 215,000 bales exported.
  
• Leaving aside for the moment the question of why that law you claim routed all imports through New York didn't route exports through New York as well, it shows that Charleston wasn't the most important port in the South, or the second most important, or the third."

Great post, thanks for the numbers.
Sadly, they will only "sow confusion" in minds like editor-surveyor, and even more sadly they won't sow any "confusion" in DiogenesLamps' mind, because he's not capable of such feelings.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Chicago, San Fransisco, Los Angeles and Boston all have some power, but the heart of the Beast is New York, the Ivies are it's nursery, and Washington is it's store front."

Well... even you could give us a more complete listing than that, with just a little thought on the question, "who are the Left?"

1. First & foremost, any special interest which seeks more from government than they contribute to it.
   
2. Historically, anti-Federalists who opposed the Constitution and such limitations as it placed on their special interests.
   
3. Since 1800, "New York Power Brokers" allied with Southern Democrats.
   
4. Since 1825, big city immigrants, i.e., Tammany Hall.
   
5. Since the time of Karl Marx, increasingly more academics & media types sometimes calling themselves "progressives".
   
6. Since the New Deal, socialist workers and their Unions, though these days being more frequently run-off by ever more Leftist Democrats.
   
7. Since the New Deal, workers in the vast new Federal bureaucracy.
   
8. Since the 1940s, Hollywood leftists.
   
9. Since the 1960s "social justice" warriors (for race, gender, ethnicity) and environmentalists.
   
10. Since 1973's Roe v Wade, pro-abortion activists.
    
11. Since 2000, "Silicone Valley" Nuevo-riche millionaires & billionaires.
    
12. So who am I forgetting?

So now that we've looked at the Left, who are our more conservative Republicans?

1. First & foremost, lovers of the Constitution & Bible, and not necessarily in that order -- traditional family values people.
   
2. Since at least 1836, rural Northern & Southern farmers, as opposed to Democrat Van Buren's big city immigrants allied to Southern slave-holders.
   
3. Smaller-town, smaller-business, independent contractors (i.e., DJ Trump), including professionals.
   
4. Since the Civil War, military (Grand Army of the Republic) and law enforcement.
   
5. More & more patriotic workers, including Union workers, the old "Reagan Democrats" are now "Trump Republicans".
   Thank them for Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin & others.
   
6. So who am I forgetting here?

My point is: only a few of those have anything to do with your alleged "New York Power Brokers" and all of them would be Democrats.

Why do you disagree?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Too much to address, and you don’t listen anyway, so I won’t bother."

Let me help you with that, here's the bottom line from my post #340:

"In sum, 'the South' was certainly important economically, but just not as important as they imagined, a fact demonstrated during the Civil War when all commerce with Confederate states ended and yet the Union survived & prospered, doubling it's GDP from 1860 to 1865."

And you disagree, why, exactly?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "So basically, the 1/4 of the Citizens who lived in the South produced 80% of all the European trade."

But regardless of how often you post that here, it's still fake news.
The real facts can be found here:

1. 1860 Southern Exports = $229 million = 61%
2. 1860 Northern Exports = $26 million = 7%
3. 1860 Western Exports = $61 million = 16%
4. 1860 Gold & Silver = $57 million = 16%

5. 1860 Total US Exports = $373 million = 100%

But the numbers from 1861 tell us that not all those "Southern exports" actually came from the South.
We see that cotton certainly did, and those exports fell 80%.
However, tobacco exports fell only 15% thus demonstrating they were not truly from "the South" at all.

You need to wrap your mind around the facts, FRiend.

[BroJoeK]

BJK to central_va: "In fact, as DiogenesLamp happily points out, had Confederates won they would have strong claims to states like Illinois, Indiana & Iowa whose exports shipped down the Mississippi to New Orleans.
Washington. DC, itself could become the Confederate capital, surrounded by Confederate states.
The rump US capital would once again flee north, to Philadelphia or New York.
So North America would split up into its several constituent parts and the United States would be no more:"

DiogenesLamp: "Not exactly my argument, but not that far off.
The South would have come to dominate the Western and border states, and those would have eventually come into it's political orbit, but none of this would have happened immediately.
It would have taken decades."

Important to note, in this long-running debate between central_va & others, that DiogenesLamp is on the "others" side, which posits a much more robust victorious Confederacy than central_va will admit.

Indeed, DiogenesLamp admits "it would have taken decades" but will not just yet admit the other necessary event: "Civil War II".
Had Confederates won the first Civil War there would have been a second to decide the fates of such other North American nations as "the Bread Basket" and "the Empty Quarter".

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Yes, it was being nice to the Germans that caused them to want revenge on the world."

So then, you agree that we were much nicer to Germans at the end of the Second World War, and that's why they don't want "revenge" today?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "They debated slavery at the Constitutional convention, and the Northern Delegates compromised on the issue.
Had they refused to do so, the South would have never ratified the Constitution.
If they didn't like the terms, they shouldn't have agreed to them. "

Agreed, Northerners were "guilty" of putting their love of country before their abhorrence of slavery.
They had already fought one terribly destructive war against Britain and were not willing to fight another, just as destructive, with each other over slavery.
In today's terms, they "kicked the can" down to future generations.

Considering that Civil War was roughly equivalent to the Revolution in percentages, I can't say that I blame them.

[editor-surveyor]

.
BroJoe, you sure love fantasy games!

Is reality just too dull and boring for you?

Had the confederacy won, we might still have a functioning constitution!

Anyway, “what if” seems to be your “safe space,” but the rest of us have to deal with reality.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “They had.” <<

And continue to do so today.

Go Trump!
.

[DoodleDawg]

Had the confederacy won, we might still have a functioning constitution!

Wishful thinking on your part. The Confederacy ignored their own constitution to an extent never dreamed of by Lincoln's accusers. Had the South won there is no reason to think that practice would not have continued.

[rockrr]

If the confeds had “won” they’d all be speaking with a British accent.

[editor-surveyor]

.
There is no reason to think that we wouldn’t still have the original 13th amendment, the one that forbid worshippers of the Temple Bar from holding public office.

We wouldn’t have any of the subsequent amendments that are the heart and soul of the destruction of America.

Of course we know where your heart is.
.