The Republic Party is the ANTI-Slavery Party!

It should be posted on every billboard in America. It should be a major part of every political ad.

People *SAY* i'm spouting crazy talk, but this is only because I am saying things they don't want to hear, not because the things i'm saying are crazy.

I think it's more that you ignore objections and counterarguments and keep posting the same disproven stuff.

I do not dispute that an unwillingness to compete with slave labor was a powerful motivating factor regarding why whites didn't want slavery, and if an effort is made to chose between which issue they hated more, the presence of blacks or free labor undercutting their wages, I would be hard pressed to say which was the more dominant issue for them.

I don't deny that what we call racism was a factor for many. That was true of both sides in that dispute. But I also don't deny that moral arguments also played a role. If we were a country founded on liberty, how did slavery fit into that?

But I can say with a great deal of confidence that their opposition to slavery did not emanate from a concern about the welfare of black people.

Many were moved by the beatings that slaves endured and by seeing people in chains and on the auction block. But I think you have to understand that 19th century politics weren't preoccupied with some idea of loving kindness, or the welfare state, or integration, or multiculturalism. People were expected to be free and fend for themselves and groups more or less to keep to themselves. That offends us today, but that's how it was, and feelings between groups can't simply be reduced to hatred.

wardaddy: "Only hatred towards blacks came from the most ardent ignorant klansmen of which I only saw them on tv not knowing any and that hatred was directed mostly at the leadership radical or not elements
We were raised to view them sort of paternalistic noblise oblige"

I think I totally understand that, and am not for one second being critical.

But some of our pro-Confederate posters, like DiogenesLamp, take it the next step and claim that such white paternalism is the only possible definition of "love" and so whatever relative freedoms Northern blacks enjoyed were necessarily the results of Northern whites' "hatred" for blacks.

Post-war Southern paternalistic "love" was accompanied by discrimination, segregation, voter suppression, Jim Crow laws and occasional KKK acts of terrorism, all courtesy of Democrats.

Northern Republicans' alleged "hatred" was accompanied by less discrimination, fewer Jim Crow type laws, better economic circumstances, and far less KKK type terrorism.

The bottom line is that when opportunities presented to forsake Southern "love" for Northern "hatred", about 5 million African Americans chose to move away from "love" and towards "hatred" in the Great Migration from 1915 to 1960.

Pelham quoting: "Booth had a very active role in politics during the years before and during the Civil War.
During his teen years he was active with the Know Nothings, an anti-immigrant political party.
He was pro-slavery and detested abolitionists.”"

Among your quotes, this one may encapsulate your argument best.
It tells us, as a teenager Booth was a political "Know Nothing".

But, in 1860 Booth was no longer a teenager and Know Nothings were not on the Maryland ballot.
In Maryland the only real choice was between Southern Democrats (Breckenridge) and Constitutional Unionists (John Bell).
By early 1861 Booth was ardently anti-Union, strongly suggesting that by then he had followed Southern Democrats into secessionism and war against the United States.

Pelham quoting: " 'To my knowledge, there are no surviving statements in which John Wilkes Booth declares he is a Democrat, but merely saying so oversimplifies his politics,' Christian McWhirter, the Lincoln historian at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, told us in an email."

Sure, I "get" that, everybody's political views are more "complicated" than the simplistic choices we must vote for on election day, and that would also be true of John Wilkes Booth.

However, from early 1861 onwards, Booth was adamantly pro-Confederate, anti-Union and anti-abolition.
Booth's views then lined up better with those of Southern Democrats than any other then active party.

I think it's more that you ignore objections and counterarguments and keep posting the same disproven stuff.

When I dismiss arguments it's because they are meritless, as in they don't prove what is claimed. As for me posting "disproven" stuff, I am at a loss to understand what you mean because I am unaware of anything i've been posting as having been disproven.

Are you referring to who was producing all the revenue for the Federal government? Even BroJoeK admits it was at least 50% being produced by the South, and at one point I got him to go as high as 60%.

But I also don't deny that moral arguments also played a role.

The role of the moral arguments is way overblown. It *IS* the only thing they teach in my lifetime, and you have to look at history for yourself to realize the moral arguments are a distortion of the reality that existed in that era.

If we were a country founded on liberty, how did slavery fit into that?

Few were concerning themselves with slavery in 1776. The vast majority of people who signed the Declaration of Independence did not read those famous five words as applying to slaves, they read them as applying to themselves and their relationship with the British government.

It was only later that people started to realize these same ideas should be applied to slaves, and that is when the abolitionist movement started actually gaining a lot of ground. To be fair, some immediately thought the ideas of people being equal should be applied to slaves, (Such as Jefferson and some others who's names i've forgotten), but the vast majority of people at the time were not even considering slavery as an issue at the time.

Many were moved by the beatings that slaves endured...

There is a famous picture of a slave's back showing all sorts of scars, presumably from being whipped. In a previous discussion, I wondered if there were any more such pictures and so I tried to find some. I think I might have found one other, but oddly enough, pictures of whipped slaves backs are seemingly rare.

"Well how can this be?" I asked myself. Everyone tells me that slavery was horrible, and slaves were constantly being whipped and beaten and held in chains. To prove it, they trot out that same picture.

Then I found out some background on that picture. It was staged by an abolitionist group so that they could circulate it for propaganda purposes. In other words, it was intended to mislead people as to what was actually going on, and to inspire anger and provoke action.

It reminds me of what the pro-Abortion people do with their coat hanger signs. They try to get the public to believe something that isn't as common as they want people to believe it is.

I keep finding out that when you poke at an oft repeated canard to justify why they killed 750,000 people in a war, it is often revealed to be deliberately misleading.

...and by seeing people in chains and on the auction block.

Which should be highly upsetting, but now i'm beginning to wonder how often that happened. If people lie or mislead you about one thing, perhaps they are lying to you or attempting to mislead you about another?

Slavery is an ugly business and it never should have gotten started on this continent, but when you agree to have it as you form a country, you have made a deal with the devil.

People were expected to be free and fend for themselves and groups more or less to keep to themselves. That offends us today, but that's how it was, and feelings between groups can't simply be reduced to hatred.

I've found some more Lincoln quotes that are problematic for his image. I'm not going to show them here because they are quite objectionable.

I believe Nolu Chan got banned for quoting the actual words in the Illinois Black Codes, so I won't go there.

But one finds it hard to understand how people can say such things without there being hatred at the base of it.

DiogenesLamp: "As for people trying to forbid slavery being motivated by hate, that is what the evidence indicates.
Their prime motivation was to oppose black people, and that appears to be what was driving *MOST* people's opposition to slavery."

Here yet again we see DiogenesLamp attempting to argue that, in effect, "slavery = love" and "abolition = hatred" of African Americans.
The patent absurdity of this argument can be seen in the fact that there are no known examples of African Americans escaping from freedom in the North to slavery in the South.
It didn't happen because, however imperfect were conditions in the North, they were still preferred to the "love" of slave masters in the South.

Oh, so DiogenesLamp tries hard to argue that very few Northerners had "pure love" in their hearts for African Americans and that all were full of mixed motives, including racism.
But in human nature, nothing is ever "pure" and political arguments must appeal to several motives simultaneously.
In the case of abolitionism:

The moral argument for abolitionism began in Northern churches which taught that the Bible opposes slavery for God's people and tells us to teach the Gospel to all.
Logical arguments pointed to the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal", and why this should also apply to African Americans.
Economic arguments expressed fears by highly paid Northern white workers of their jobs being taken away by slave-laborers.
The political argument recognized divergences of slave-state and free-state interests.
Racist arguments -- which resulted in Black Codes in some Northern states -- were,
- First, always passed by Northern Democrats, not Republicans, and
- Second, were arguably more to support Southern states and help return fugitives, than out of any particular animosity towards African Americans.

Indeed, prewar Northern racist arguments could easily be couched in terms of supporting fellow Southern Democrats and helping to preserve the Union by providing a "northern wall" against runaway slaves.

And we can see that these Northern states were not seriously anti-black because the growth rates of their freed African American populations from, say, 1820 to 1860, were higher than in any other states.

All of which DiogenesLamp well knows, but none of which he can acknowledge because it contradicts his beloved "Northerners hate blacks" narrative.

x: "Booth was furious about Lincoln’s reelection in 1864.
If he voted, most likely it would have been for McClellan."

Right, Booth may or may not have voted in 1860, since he was accidentally seriously wounded in October, barely survived.
But what's certain is that by early 1861, Booth was ardently secessionist and pro-Confederate, meaning, in terms of the issues of that time, he absolutely supported Democrats, not Constitutional Unionists.
In 1860 "Know Nothings" were no longer part of the political picture.

x: "FWIW, an ancestor of Gary Peters, the current little-known Democrat senator from Michigan, gave Booth shelter when he was on the run after the assassination.
The family claimed they didn’t know what Booth had done, but most likely they did."

Dr. Samuel Mudd's house near Waldorf, Maryland is open to the public and I've driven past many times, though never stopped in to visit.

I always thought the phrase, "your name is mud" originated with the good doctor's conviction for helping JW Booth.
Turns out, the phrase predates 1865 by over 40 years and refers to "a stupid twaddling fellow."

I wonder if it isn't also related to the term "mud-sill", used in a political context?

Robert DeLong: "A lot of the confirming evidence provided by woodpusher all seem to have their root in Col. John B. Baldwin's Sworn Testimony, which makes sense, but does that equate to making his statement true?
Not in my book.

So, we are stuck in the same quandary.
What is to be believed?
The only thing we can do is believe what we want to believe.
We all know that belief may or may not be the reality."

Certainly history is full of mysteries we may never know for sure about.
But not every mystery is completely unknowable and in this particular case, there are important facts to remember:

Even before the war ended in 1865, Confederate leaders were busily rewriting its history, to first, downplay the importance of slavery in 1860, second to up-play the importance of some other -- any other -- issues, like tariffs, and third, to find somebody -- anybody -- other than themselves to blame for their downfall.
CSA Col. Baldwin had been an elite in the Confederate leadership, serving not only in its army, but also in the Confederate congress.
So he was a man steeped in Confederate party-line propaganda.
We can be certain his words were intended to benefit the interests of former Confederates.
If the words Baldwin put in Lincoln's mouth were genuine, then someone else friendlier, or at least not hostile, to Lincoln would have contemporarily reported similar sentiments.
But they didn't, instead others focused on the more immediate issues of how to defend Federal properties and troops under threat from newly declared Confederates.
Lincoln's offer of "a fort (Sumter) for a state (VA)" seems genuine to me, and I think, when that became impossible, Lincoln realized he was being played, that it was all just a scam intended to extract as many concessions as possible, with no real possibility of preserving the Union without war.

Baldwin was a reliable defender of the Confederacy, not of historical accuracy.

DiogenesLamp: "Well there is circumstantial evidence.
72% of Federal revenue came from the Southern states.
I find it hard to believe that a President, presiding over a nation that is close to bankruptcy, (only having 200 thousand in cash reserves at the time) would not be greatly concerned about revenue, especially when 72% of his revenue is walking out the door."

Those are lies which DiogenesLamp is convinced he can make true simply by repeating them over and over and over again.

The real truth is that only about 6% of Federal tariff revenues came from Confederate ports, and of those, 75% were from New Orleans.
Charleston SC contributed less than 1% of Federal revenues.

So, in moments of rare honesty, DiogenesLamp will confess that, yes, "the South" didn't contribute "72% of Federal revenues", but rather, he claims "the South" generated 72% of US exports, which he likes to pretend is somehow, in effect, the same thing.
It's not and it wasn't 72% anyway, it was roughly 50%.

Of course, 50% is a huge number, not to be minimized, and not necessary to exaggerate, but of course, our pro-Confederates love to exaggerate and so necessarily, 50% must, by hook or by crook, become 72%.

And naturally, for purposes of exaggeration, DiogenesLamp wants to include in "the South" not just the seven Deep South Confederate states of March, 1861, but all 15 slave states plus all commodities produced even partially in those states.
For examples, tobacco grown in, say Ohio, DiogenesLamp counts as "Southern Products" and manufactures of cotton, exported from Boston or Philadelphia, DiogenesLamp still classifies as "Southern Products" -- that's partly how he grows 50% up to 72%.

Just as important, DiogenesLamp reduces actual total exports to make the Southern Products look larger.
Here the original Federal numbers for 1860 were $378 million in total exports, which were corrected in February, 1863 to $400 million, both of which numbers include exports of gold (California) and silver (Nevada).

Those total numbers make raw cotton exports less than 50% and limit the upper bounds of "Southern Products" to mid-50's percent.
So, naturally, DiogenesLamp ignores both numbers and instead concentrates on the originally reported exports, not including gold & silver, of $316 million.
Now, by counting everything even somewhat produced below the Mason-Dixon line, he bumps up 1860 "Southern Products" to $229 million or now 72% of the reduced Union $316 million in 1860 exports.

In reality, even $229 million is only 56% of the corrected $400 million total, and once we delete from $229 million those commodities which were mainly or entirely made in Union states, the bottom-line number is right around 50%.

But even 50% is ridiculous because, after 1861 the Union quickly found ways to compensate for lost cotton exports, and the chief method was: higher tariffs to encourage domestic production.
Republicans then, just like Donald Trump today wanted to Make America Great by Putting Americans First and encouraging domestic production.

A second point which DiogenesLamp constantly lies about is the Union's alleged only "$200 thousand in cash reserves".

In fact, at all times before, during and after the war, the Union never had a serious problem borrowing as much money as Congress authorized it to.

There's no historical evidence that Lincoln himself was overly worried about the Treasury's balances on hand.
In fact, if you think just a moment, how could a "war chest" of only $200k in cash reserves encourage Lincoln to "start a war" at Fort Sumter?
It makes no sense and so is just DiogenesLamp repeating lies in hopes of magically make them true, or at least, true enough for Lost Cause propaganda purposes.

Well, according to that page presented from a book, assuming the numbers are accurate, it was indeed 72% of exports were paid to the treasury in years 1857 & 1859. I did the math to calculate the percentage.

But I told him that what he presented did not show the complete picture. I stated we need actual figures as to the entire tax bite paid by slave states that seceded from the Union and the states that remained with the Union to obtain the true percentage.

I'll refrain from saying he was dishonest, because it is a rather confusing point to nail down. In fact, I almost missed the fact that what was being presented was just the export portion of revenue for those 2 years.

Furthermore, it seemed to be excluding the slave states in the north that had not seceded, for it identified it as being southern states vs. northern states. 🙂

You mentioned the IRS, I was just saying the IRS could not have played any role whatsoever.

The income tax became law during the Special Session of Congress that was called July 4, 1861.

Since the states started seceding from the Union beginning in Dec. of 1860 and culminating in June of 1861, I seriously doubt that any of the seceding states paid their taxes. So even the law you cite has no bearing in the discussion.

As far as the fiat currency is concerned, you again make my point. Yes it didn't start out as a fiat currency, but it quicky became a fiat currency. The Confederate Dollar started out as a fiat currency.

The Revenue Act of 1861 certainly had nothing to with the the southern states that had seceded from the Union, but yes it was another way for the Union to generate revenue for the Union. So what is your point there? No one is denying that the revenue lost from the southern states didn't negatively impact the Union. So, the question remains was the impact as great as Col. John B. Baldwin's Sworn Testimony implied?

Would a reduction in your earning of 15% negatively impact you? Especially if you were now forced to take on a costly commitment that mostly likely would involve years of coverage. Don't you wish you had the power to print your own money when the SHTF financially? 🙂

My point is that no one has made the case that the percentage being bantered around, 72%, as what the south contributed to the Federal Treasury. What was presented was only the export percentage that south paid to the treasury. That is not the complete picture. The real cost was the new obligation to wage war. The lost revenue absolutely had an impact doing that, but would it have collapsed the north if the north had decided to let the south secede? I don't know, because I don't have enough information to make that determination. Now I'm not stating that the 72% is incorrect, what I'm saying is that the percentage hasn't been confirmed as being 72%.

Here is what was the reality of that income tax act of 1861:

On August 5, 1861, President Lincoln imposes the first federal income tax by signing the Revenue Act. Strapped for cash with which to pursue the Civil War, Lincoln and Congress agreed to impose a 3 percent tax on annual incomes over $800.

Congress repealed Lincoln’s tax law in 1871, but in 1909 passed the 16th Amendment, which set in place the federal income-tax system used today. Congress ratified the 16th Amendment in 1913.

Sourced Reference for Federal income taxation

“But, in 1860 Booth was no longer a teenager and Know Nothings were not on the Maryland ballot.”

Nice. But that tells the world nothing at all about Booth’s political affiliation, if any, in 1860. Or if he even bothered to vote.

Well, except maybe for the stuff that you made up before, when you were ardently declaiming that he was a Democrat.

A position that no historian, ever, including Lincoln historian McWhirter, has found any evidence to support.

That’s really a bummer when you are so hoping and so convinced that the “everybody knows” version of history is true.

But then not all of the world operates in the “evidence is necessary” “proof is needed” universe.

Some, perhaps many, enjoy the “my guesses equal fact” “imagination rules!” “absence of evidence is proof” universe that you prefer.

And therefore your fact-deficient story can still be wildly popular and no one will care. Cheers! Carry on.

Robert DeLong: "Well, according to that page presented from a book, assuming the numbers are accurate, it was indeed 72% of exports were paid to the treasury in years 1857 & 1859.
I did the math to calculate the percentage."

You realize, I hope, that your words "72% of exports were paid to the treasury" are, at best meaningless, at worst... well... much worse.

That's because, "exports" were never "paid to the treasury", not ever, not one penny.
The whole suggestion is pure Southern propaganda nonsense.

What were paid to the treasury were tariffs on imports, not exports.
In 1860 Federal tariff revenues totaled ~$47 million, of which 90% was collected at the Northern ports of New York, Boston and Philadelphia.
About 6% of tariff revenues were collected from Confederate ports and of that, 80% came from just one -- New Orleans.

So, our pro-Confederates claim, you can't have imports without exports and since supposedly 72% of exports were "Southern Products", therefore, logically, 72% of import tariffs revenues were earned by the South.

The factual response is, first, it's not a direct link between import tariffs and exports, second, it wasn't 72%, but rather closer to 50%, third, when Confederate exports were deleted from US numbers in 1861, the result was not a 72% drop in US exports in any commodity except one -- cotton.
Everything else -- i.e., tobacco -- proved to be less "Southern Products" and more "Union Products".

It might help to remember that in 1860 the US GDP was circa $4.4 billion, of which around 15%, ~$700 million came from future Confederate states.
Of that, $200 million was the value of their cotton exports.
At the same time the South "imported" around $200 million in manufactured goods from the North.
So, on average, every penny Southerners earned from exporting cotton they spent on "importing" Northern manufactured goods and services.

In 1861, when those $200 millions were deleted from the US economy, it did have an effect, but it did not cause a major collapse.

Bottom line is that cotton was the only indisputably "Southern Product" major export.
Everything else claimed as "Southern Products" could be and soon was produced just as well in Union states.

Robert DeLong: "I'll refrain from saying he was dishonest, because it is a rather confusing point to nail down.
In fact, I almost missed the fact that what was being presented was just the export portion of revenue for those 2 years."

I hope now you understand that phrase "export portion of revenue" is complete nonsense, there was never such a thing.
There were only ever tariffs on imports and these were indirectly related to exports.
A key reason is that, on average, Southerners spent their export earnings on "imports" of manufactured goods from the North.

As for DiogenesLamp, we've had this same conversation many times and he always refuses to acknowledge or learn anything outside the scope of his anti-American narratives.

You know the old expression, "that's my story and I'm sticking to it"?
DiogenesLamp has his narrative, and he won't deviate from it, regardless of any other facts and reasons.

Pelham: "Nice. But that tells the world nothing at all about Booth’s political affiliation, if any, in 1860.
Or if he even bothered to vote."

We don't know if Booth voted in 1860 -- it's said he was accidentally seriously wounded in October and so may not have been able to vote.

What we know for certain is that by early 1861, like other Maryland Democrats, Booth supported secession, the Confederacy, anti-abolition and war against the United States.

By early 1861, Booth's views had little to no connection with those of the only other viable Maryland political party, the Constitutional Unionists, who opposed Democrats' secession and war against the United States.

I'm saying, if Booth was then anything, he was a Democrat and to deny that is to steadfastly avoid obvious reality.

Pelham: "Well, except maybe for the stuff that you made up before, when you were ardently declaiming that he was a Democrat.
A position that no historian, ever, including Lincoln historian McWhirter, has found any evidence to support."

I think you may have heard of the scientific theory first proposed by Albert Einstein's brother Charlie, it's called the Duck Theory, and applied to Democrats it goes:

"If it looks like a Democrat, swims like a Democrat, and quacks like a Democrat, then it probably is a Democrat."

Or, Booth could just be a duck, I don't know.

😂

That's because, "exports" were never "paid to the treasury", not ever, not one penny.

The whole suggestion is pure Southern propaganda nonsense.

BTW, 72% it the percentage of receipts the south realized with regards to the receipts of the north realized, for the total merchandise line for exports (in the above page). Given with the assumption that both paid the same rate, it would logically be reasonable to say that the tax burden would equal the percentage in receipts as well. 🙂

In 1857 & 1859 they were, beyond that, it's doubtful.

If not, enlighten me as to the truth, as you see it. 🙂

Provide me with references. for only with references can we honestly make our case. 🙂

$700 million came from future Confederate states.

Future Confederate states? Who is talking about future confederate states? We are talking about Confederate states that seceded from the Union. Those states numbered 11 by June 4th 1861, & remained 11 through the entire Civil War. So, you lose me in understanding with the use of the verbiage future.

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.