Posted on 11/02/2002 11:20:01 AM PST by Aurelius
I don't see it as being as unfair as holding people to an agreement formed 3/4 of a century before by people long-dead who thought that they were forming a voluntary union (small "u") and had no way of foreseeing the problems that would arise in the future. Of course the seceding parties should take a responsible share of the debt incurred during the union. But let's not forget that the South had, (under the scheme of the iniquitous Alexander Hamilton to help his cronies enrich themselves at national expense - which was the direct cause of the whiskey rebellion), assumed a portion of debt of the northern states - so that they were up somewhat in the balance.
Nothing could be more unfair than forcing people to remain in a federation which they see as totally opposed to their best intestests and facilitating an uncompensated transfer of wealth from themselves to more favored members of the federation.
Our country today is made up of people equally divided between fundamentally opposed and incompatible views of what government should and should not do. Each wants to force its desired political structure on the other. In my view there can be no satisfactory compromise between such groups, unless the federal government were to be weakened very considerably. The solution to such problems is, as Switzerland approximates, avoid formation of large inhomogeneously populated national entities with rigid uniform systems of law. It would be far preferable to have many small homgeneously populated states, each with a political system and laws appropriate to its particular population.
"Can't you see how unfair that is?"
Your question arises from a very fundamental philosophical error. You can't understand why other people don't see the world exactly as you do. But the way that you see the world is quite particular to you, determined in ways which you cannot possibley understand by the sum total of your life's experiences and the various influences to which you were subjected in your formative years. You cannot expect people whose experiences have been quite different from yours to see the world exactly as you do - but you do seem to expect just that. And you think that the "truths" that hold in your particular worldview are absolute truths rather than "truths" particular to you.
Just because a book is offered on the internet doesn't mean it contains a true recounting of events.
If Butler had such a conversation with president Lincoln there should be something in the record to corroborate that. I haven't seen such.
Walt
But the funds to service that debt will be unequally extracted from the population - and that is no less unfair than any "divvying-up" of the debt would be.
I don't see it as being as unfair as holding people to an agreement formed 3/4 of a century before by people long-dead who thought that they were forming a voluntary union (small "u") and had no way of foreseeing the problems that would arise in the future.
The fly in the buttermilk is that the debt was extant in 1861. The feds had assumed the debts of Texas. the feds had paid hundreds of millions of dollars to move the indians out of Georgia and Florida.
It is right to just let those states walk on money spent on their behalf in living memory?
Which state picks up the tab? The one with the latest postmark on its secession documents?
It's nuts. It's absurd and unjust, just as President Lincoln said.
Walt
I read some really horrible anecdote where this person was walking through the woods, I believe near Charleston, and came across a slave that had been tied to a tree and left to die, with his eyes gouged out.
That sort of coersion was the only way to maintain slavery.
What the slave power took umbrage with was that the north was no longer willing to help them maintain the terror.
Walt
Needless to say, you haven't convinced me. I can certainly agree that an equitable handling of the debt is a problem, but not an insurmountable one as you wish to conclude. And I think it is nuts to say that the people can be held hostage to the existence of common debt. It certainly would be a good reason to limit federal functions to the utmost (say like to those mandated by the Constitution) to absolutely minimize federal debt.
I can read, and I am brutally honest. Post the proof of both assertions, or retract your absurd claims. If the latter happens, I'll apologize, but until then, the blatant lies and falsehoods propagated remain challenged.
Nonsense. It is documented by one party to the conversation. That is more that your assertion that it didn't happen. It's not a case of proving a negative, it's up to you to disprove a positive.
Butler had the utmost respect for blacks, once he saw them in battle. Lincoln, even after blacks had served the Union, still wanted to continue his plans of white-separatism, repatriation and a divided continent.
Quoting Butler certainly doesn't indicate any like or dislike for the man. He might have been known as "Beast" or "Spoons", but he was better than Sherman (spit). The lack of refutation is not proof of refutation.
Butler's accounting of the conversation is documented. Have you read EVERY Book every published on the subject? Every broadside?
Nonsense. It is documented by one party to the conversation.
Where was O.J. Simpson on the night of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?
Surely we can accept his word? Fortunately for him, he was the only party to the conversation left alive. The same is true of this conversation with Butler and Lincoln.
I aim to get some more info on this during the weekend.
Walt
Butler's accounting of the conversation is documented. Have you read EVERY Book every published on the subject?
More books have been written on Abraham Lincoln than any other subject in American history. Surely, just a --mention-- that Butler met with Lincoln in say, the first two weeks of February,1865 from someone other than Butler is not too much to ask?
The Kunhardt illustrated bio of Lincoln breaks his down his administration month by month. The listings are by no means exhaustive, but there is no mention of this meeting, there is no mention in Oates' bio or in Donald's bio.
If such a meeting took place, someone, sometime, made note of it. So far, the only documentation we have is from Butler the office seeker, writing 27 years later.
Walt
Show that during Lincoln's life.
Walt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.