Posted on 09/07/2010 12:43:35 PM PDT by gjmerits
The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination - that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at wolvesofliberty.com ...
I was not a participant in those discussions. It looks like Lincoln thought about the problem you cited and proposed a solution. For a $400 per slave up front payment, a state would then have, say, 20 years to phase out slavery. Perhaps Lincoln's proposal should be called "gradual emancipation with up front compensation."
Under such a proposal, the value of slaves would probably gradually increase as fewer and fewer of them remained, then decline as the termination date (probably age related) for their slavery approached. In any event, Lincoln's proposal paid for the slaves up front (underpaid actually) and prevented the government from having to pay rising prices for slaves as their numbers declined.
By the way, Lincoln made his proposal in a letter dated March 1862 [Link]. Perhaps he proposed it in other places and times as well.
It does show however, your beloved General receiving his just due. Nothing non-classy about it. Actually urinating on Satan's spawn could be inspired by God, you should try it some time. As a matter of fact, I know of this statue sculpted by Daniel Chester. You interested?
Next time kick the dog. You're probably better at that.
It just shows some liquored up Southerner doing what comes natural to them - peeing outside.
As a matter of fact, I know of this statue sculpted by Daniel Chester. You interested?
His name was Daniel Chester FRENCH, you bonehead. Geez, can't even insult someone without screwing it up.
“What you’re admitting is that Lincoln’s position wasn’t open for discussion.”
How can the south be open to surrendering their sovereign rights to a tyrant?
Your right that particular thing can never be open to negotiation.
” The only outcome permitted was for him to surrender and recognize confederate sovereignty.”
How is that surrender? He still gets to rule the North which constitutes 2/3rd of the former union. Or is he soo greedy for power that he must rule all or none?
“So how can you say there was a sincere offer to negotiate?”
How can you say it was not a sincere offer to negotiate?
What does the South have to get from Lincoln in return when they are forced to permanently give up everything(their sovereign) as a starting point to negotiations?
Lincoln’s idea of negotiation is like that of Kim Jong Il as describe by our current governor and former ambassador Bill Richardson. His key demand is non-negotiable.
Only in this case Lincoln is worse cause Lincolns key non-negotiable demand is control over everything the south had to offer. It really didn’t matter what ever else Lincoln decided to offer the south, cause that too Lincoln and the union would ultimately control and tax.
The North had proven to the south that the Constitution meant only what the majority controlling the Federal Government said it meant. They had threatened war over the southern nullification, meanwhile they in their own states were wildly nullying the the clearly stranded demand to return escaped slaves.
There really was nothing Lincoln or congress, or the northern states were willing or capable of offering the south that would have meant anything towards securing the life, liberty, and property of southerns into the future.
This is particularly the case when they denied the right of secession, which is why 4 more states left upon Lincoln’s demand to invade the south. IF we can’t even leave the union then we are absolutely and unconditionally the slaves to the controlling majority.
Lincoln’s unconditional terms were indeed demanding absolute everything in exchange for ultimately meaningless chump change.
I don’t know how it is that you can define that as negotiations.
“So how can you say there was a sincere offer to negotiate? You can’t. They were there to deliver confederate demands, Nothing more and nothing less. So please drop the ‘they were there to negotiate’ farce.”
The south was interested in negotiating peaceful relations between the confederacy and the United States.
Just because you cannot control a people does not mean you cannot have prosperous relations with them.
Only tyrants like Lincoln are convinced all depends upon your control.
The South could easily have continued to be a major trading partner with the north. In almost every respect their economic relations could have remained identical.
Indeed the only thing the north would have lost economically was priority access to southern cotton and markets.
The northern industry would have had to start competing with Europe for southern resources and money as an equal.
Thus the unnaturally rapid industrialization of the north might have been slowed.
But this indeed one the main economic grievance the south had with the abuses of the north, driving this unnatural and disproportional industrialization at the expense of the south.
I forgot that Lincoln had dictatorial powers that the Constitution and the judiciary couldn't restrain. Would this have been like Lincoln tossing people in prison for arguing in print that the South was right and the Lincoln Administration wrong?
There were treason trials after the war. Those in Tennessee come to mind. There were no convictions in those trials that I'm aware of. If some were in fact convicted, they were pardoned by President Johnson.
Forty acres and a mule were indeed promised to slaves by the Federals. Here's how that turned out [Representative Beck of Kentucky in the Congressional Globe, May 13, 1868; my bold below]:
Taxation without representation for the white man, and representation without taxation for the negro is now the rule in South Carolina.
Now as far as Alabama is concerned ... all the facts are known to this House. We all know that the constitution of Alabama was defeated, and defeated in the mode permitted by the laws passed by this Congress, and this House has so decided; yet we are called upon [by Stevens and the Radicals] to impose that constitution on the people of Alabama, a constitution which they themselves have rejected, which we have said they have rejected. The people of Alabama having rejected that constitution, it is now brought forward in an omnibus bill, along with constitutions of other States, and we are asked to declare that they have adopted that constitution.
Let me look hurriedly at the provisions respecting the other States. ... The fact appears in all the publications of the day, and is true beyond all peradventure, that hundreds or thousands of negroes who came to the polls to vote for the constitutions and the officers under them came from the plantations with halters in their hands, that they might lead home the mules they expected to receive; for forty acres of land and a mule were promised to every ignorant negro who would vote for the constitutions.
I'll take that as a yes.
How is that surrender? He still gets to rule the North which constitutes 2/3rd of the former union. Or is he soo greedy for power that he must rule all or none?
Because only one side was open for discussion. That is not negotiations, that's an ultimatum. And why would any leader agree to that?
How can you say it was not a sincere offer to negotiate?
Negotiate what? Giving in to rebel demands? That's surrender. You admit that Lincoln's position was not open for discussion. So unless you have no concept of what the defintition of 'negotiation' is, you've admitted they weren't there to negotiate anything. They were there to deliver their ultimatum and that was that.
Lincoln’s idea of negotiation is like that of Kim Jong Il as describe by our current governor and former ambassador Bill Richardson. His key demand is non-negotiable.
The South's key demand was non-negotiable, you said so yourself. So does mean that the confederacy was actually run by Kim Jong Davis?
The North had proven to the south that the Constitution meant only what the majority controlling the Federal Government said it meant. They had threatened war over the southern nullification, meanwhile they in their own states were wildly nullying the the clearly stranded demand to return escaped slaves.
Oh barf. What you mean is that State's Rights were for Southern states only and not Northern ones.
The south was interested in negotiating peaceful relations between the confederacy and the United States.
Lincoln did not recognize the legitimacy of Southern secession. In order to get negotiate anything, assuming there was actually any intent on the part of the South to negotiate in good faith to begin with, he first had to give in to rebel demands and recognize their illegal acts as legal. In other words, surrender to rebel demands.
The South could easily have continued to be a major trading partner with the north. In almost every respect their economic relations could have remained identical.
Instead they chose to start a war.
“And for preserving the Union whole and undivided as our founders had bequeathed it to us, the heavy price paid was worth it as well.”
Many of the same founders thought the union would not last forever.
Still many others did not want the union in the first place, fearing it would become exactly what it has become. Of the ones that did want the union they were the most vocal in professing that the union would never become the arbitrary government it has become, or that if it did the same union would safely fall apart preserving to the people their liberty.
People like you and Lincoln destroyed everything the built and oppressed the key objective that was the most essential fruit and objective of all their efforts. Our liberty and self-determination.
You mistaken the government for the people. and placed the same government above the people as if the people exist to serve the government rather then the government existing to serve the people.
You destroyed everything the founders struggled to build.
“”How is that surrender? He still gets to rule the North which constitutes 2/3rd of the former union. Or is he soo greedy for power that he must rule all or none?”
Because only one side was open for discussion. That is not negotiations, that’s an ultimatum. And why would any leader agree to that?”
Negative the south was there to negotiate the terms for the peaceful co-existents between the United States and the Confederacy. There was much to negotiate everything from trade policy to debt division.
You are right in that Lincoln was not aiming to negotiate with the south he was issuing an ultimatum.
His terms precluded the possibility of the south getting anything meaningful in exchange for meeting his condition of unconditional union.
As for negotiations of the secession that all took place in congress over the previous 10+ years of the antebellum.
“Oh barf. What you mean is that State’s Rights were for Southern states only and not Northern ones.”
Whatever floats your boat. The North was effectively ignoring this highly spesfic provision of the Constitution:
Article 4 Section 2 Clause 3:
“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”
Granted some of the Federal laws passed in enforcing this section were well in excess of the authorized powers of Congress, but still Northern States were not following this section voluntarily.
It can be argued that in 1833 the State of South Carolina attempted to ignore this Article 1 section 8 clause 1. When South Carolina declare that the tariff of Abomination to be inoperative in the state and prepared to defend its deceleration with force mobilizing the state militia for war.
South Carolina of course backed down after congress had lowered the tariff.
But it is clear that then like now there are rules that work well for you but are disastrous for us. We can’t all live together under 1 big government with 1 big set of rules.
Different environments and different economy’s require different rules, and can only afford to support so much government.
Like wise some kinds of environments and economy’s might possibly need a little more or different government then others.
For example dense populations afforded by urban development can have larger surpluses then rural agriculture economy. Theses man made surplus high density area might allow them to wast more money on things like expensive government. But the density also increases the plausibility of folks interfering with each other. and thus in some ways the utility of government to resolve the inevitable disputes.
Hence why urban areas tend to be more pro-big government then rural areas. Rural areas can’t afford it, and urban areas fear they cant live with out it.
Of course the problem is that they must both be under the same government.
This presumes, though, that the property value in slaves was purely LABOR value, a point I reject. Everything we know about the South suggests that the issues of social power over a class of people were equally important to sheer economic returns. Manufacuturing according to Bateman and Weiss brought returns of around 22% in the South, compared to a mere 4-5% in plantation agriculture, yet there was no major shift. It was not simply about money. It was about money combined with a caste system that reinforced the whole of southern society, something that they would not give up for a few dollars.
Every president has dictatorial powers during a war. And the tiny number of treason trials never reached the vast, unreprentant planter elites that really started the war.
For example?
People like you and Lincoln destroyed everything the built and oppressed the key objective that was the most essential fruit and objective of all their efforts. Our liberty and self-determination.
Bull.
You destroyed everything the founders struggled to build.
More bull.
You're the stupid one.
My question wasn't about the preservation of a country. The question is about the principle of might makes right.
It's a question that you've tried to dodge with your childishly cute answers, but, once again, you've snagged yourself.
I'll try it again: do you believe that might makes right?
NS is a believer in the principle that 'might makes right'. Some of his other heros are Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Chavez.
What you ignore is that often the mightier side is also the right side. Thus was the case with the Southern rebellion.
As opposed to your heroes: Obama, Clinton, Carter, LBJ, FDR...
It was not simply about money. It was about money combined with a caste system that reinforced the whole of southern society, something that they would not give up for a few dollars.
That might have been the incentive for slave ownership for some. But the value of slaves rose with the value of cotton exports. Here is a plot of the value of slaves over time: Link. For the ten years between 1850 and 1860 the value of slaves increased at between 7 and 8 percent per year compounded. If a slave owner owned a married pair of slaves he might own six or eight slaves by the end of a ten-year period. Some of that growth in the number of slaves was included in the plot I linked above. Young slaves, of course, were not worth what an adult slave was, but they would be in time. Not a bad investment for the Southern slave owner if you overlook the fact that it was slavery, an obvious evil.
I did some rough calculations based on some statistics I found on the web. Roughly 73 percent of slaves belonged to families owning more than ten slaves. Families that owned more than twenty slaves owned 49% of all slaves, yet those families constituted only 11% of the families owning slaves. Slaves were concentrated in those families that owned enough land to benefit from slave labor.
Manufacuturing according to Bateman and Weiss brought returns of around 22% in the South, compared to a mere 4-5% in plantation agriculture, yet there was no major shift.
Manufacturing had begun to grow in the South. Manufacturing in the South roughly matched or exceeded the value of manufacturing in the Midwest, but it was still a good deal smaller than that in the Northeast. Some of that Northeastern manufacturing depended on cotton from the South, so they were benefiting from slavery. And, of course, Northern manufacturers received a subsidy of millions of dollars yearly from the South via the tariff. That may have been the reason manufacturing had started increasing in the South.
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.